Wednesday, March 30, 2011
My apologies...
I am not so bad a typist that I can't use a "Return" key on a keyboard... but it does not see to work this morning on Blogger. Thus, my entire previous post is one continuous paragraph, rather than the easier-to-read format that included spaces between paragraphs.
Fundamentally wrong...
Qaddafi is a bad man... always has been, always will be. He has ruled Libya with an iron fist for longer than anyone else in the last 200 years, and he has done so without any sort of mandate or election from any of his people. So, I'm not suggesting that working to remove him from power is "wrong". I never felt very good about the "warm and fuzzy" attitude of the Bush and Co. folks after Libya "turned off" its WMD programs in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Iraq invasion... but an evil you know is sometimes better than an evil you don't. I never saw Qaddafi as a regional threat, outside of his ability to fund and train terror from his desert camps in the Libyan hinterland. I found this article in the Guardian... and I thought it rather telling. The author, a Libyan national, seems to feel that the rush to justify Obama's position against Qaddafi is hurting the protest position by making the effort seem an act of desperate, disunified and utterly helpless peasants... rather than the national movement that it really does seem to be. SoS Clinton has as much as said that the Libyan people are a scattered and ignorant populus up against the terror troops of Qaddafi's regime, and that without "Western" support, they cannot hope to survive, let alone win. Looking deeper than the headlines (which the author asks us all to do) shows that the rebels in Libya not only see themselves as "Libyans" first and foremost (putting to bed the notion that they are tribal warriors without order, rank or file), but have had some really huge successes against an army and air force that has worked, trained and equiped itself for exactly this sort of fighting for more than 30 years. It seems Qaddafi's experience as a revolutionary fighter has carried into how the army has trained since his rise to power. Small unit actions, street-to-street fighting, a large focus on crowd and civilian containment... all were huge factors in standard army training in Libya for decades. That's not the sort of training that lends itself to major land contests... that is the sort of training that protects a regime from exactly this sort of uprising. The State Department and the White House keep using terms like "Tripolitania" and "Cyrenaica" like they were actual ethnic centers in modern Libya... but in reality, they are no more applicable to the modern day than terms such as Gaul or Armorica are to France, or Noricum is to Austria. Out-dated geographical labels placed by Imperial Romans who not only never saw the land, but never intended to see the land they were describing. They are letters on the faces of maps in Western books, nothing more. Ask anyone coming from either of these regions what their nationality or ethnicity is... and the response will be "Libyan". It's bad enough that the mainstream media gets this wrong... there is no excuse for the administration to get it wrong, too. Support for the rebels is not out of the question, but I think that before I could willingly and whole-heartedly support such efforts, I'd have to know that this administration (or any that follow) understand that there is a trend emerging in these "popular uprisings" that is terribly disturbing... It is NOT the fundamentalist regimes that are falling to these uprisings... it is the secular or elected regimes that are falling. The nations most at risk (besides Egypt, Tunisia and Libya) are Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and the PA, which are all elected, secular governments. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE are all relatively quiet right now. The Ba'athists in Damascus are bad folks, too... but they are not the threat to global peace that places like Iran are, either. US (and all Western) support MUST hinge on the facts (certain and verifiable) that all efforts to build a government after a regime is removed are to focus on establishing representative governments that recognize the value of democratic processes and basic human rights... or no support will be given. THAT must be the center of any interventionist policy that any administration (current or future) plans to implement or follow. We must all know that such efforts will be long and rather slow in developing, but they must happen or any support will dry up like a puddle in the Sahara. I think that Libya is capable of this sort of effort, as is Tunisia and Egypt... but should a movement like the Muslim Brotherhood hyjack the effort and begin or attempt to begin a fundamentalist regime that not only ignores these basic human rights but actively tries to deny them, then such support as was offered previously will be turned against the very system it had been supporting.
Responsability To Protect
This is the new buzz phrase emanating from Obama and his apologists.
In fact, from what I can tell it is the emerging, defining foreign policy doctrine of the Obama administration, and is the impetus behind his Libyan intervention argument. This is his "preemptive doctrine", but it's preemption on steroids.
Bush declared that we had an inherent right to attack any nation stockpiling weapons, amassing troops or otherwise preparing their ability to wage war, if the express intent of such action was to attack the United States. Obama's doctrine goes further. "Responsibility to Protect" is the duty to "prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or ethnic cleansing", up to and including waging war in the effort to effect that prevention. Of course they don't call it war, it's a "kinetic military action" (yes, that's the phrase the White House actually used in place of "war").
So now, even though Bush was an evil war monger for his doctrine of preemption, we now can go to war without there being even a scintilla of a threat to the US. Can someone tell me how that is NOT going further then Bush?
Here's my concern. Various rumblings have it that the US, in conjunction with the UN, is seeking to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state by the end of this year. We all know that the Obama administration represents a fundamental shift in US-Israeli relations. What if Palestine attacked Israel, as a sovereign state? The result will be official declarations of war between nation states. And we all know Israel will win that conflict ... unless the US has a "responsibility to protect."
And before you say "he'd never go that far", let me remind you how many times we've drawn that line and he's stepped over it, with glee.
And it doesn't have to be direct US/Israel conflict. We may simply withdraw our support. Arm the new Palestinian Army. Perhaps in the interest of "fairness" all of our strategic knowledge becomes available to both sides. There are many ways to fulfill this "responsibility." And Samantha Powers, whom is a White House foreign policy advisor and wife to "Regulation Czar" Cass Sustine, advocated that very policy. Divesting the billions in Israeli aide in favor of "investing" in a Palestinian State. She even acknowledged that it would be politically costly in the US. Tough to win Florida under those circumstances. But I'm convinced he'd accept one term in return for seeing his "fundamental transformations" take hold.
Oh, and by the way. If the thought of arming Palestinians is too much to consider, bare this in mind - SoS Clinton is to decide by tomorrow on whether we will arm the Libyan Rebels.
Do you know who they are? Because I don't. I'm sure there's fine people among them, but I also know that Al Qeada now controls a Libyan city to the South after the evacuation of Qaddafi's troops.
Something about all of this just doesn't feel right. Something is "off." My gut sees a bad moon rising.
{by the way - if you're a super computer, pulling key words and phrases out for analysis, you think this post my pop a hit on NSA or some security agency's radar? hehe}
In fact, from what I can tell it is the emerging, defining foreign policy doctrine of the Obama administration, and is the impetus behind his Libyan intervention argument. This is his "preemptive doctrine", but it's preemption on steroids.
Bush declared that we had an inherent right to attack any nation stockpiling weapons, amassing troops or otherwise preparing their ability to wage war, if the express intent of such action was to attack the United States. Obama's doctrine goes further. "Responsibility to Protect" is the duty to "prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or ethnic cleansing", up to and including waging war in the effort to effect that prevention. Of course they don't call it war, it's a "kinetic military action" (yes, that's the phrase the White House actually used in place of "war").
So now, even though Bush was an evil war monger for his doctrine of preemption, we now can go to war without there being even a scintilla of a threat to the US. Can someone tell me how that is NOT going further then Bush?
Here's my concern. Various rumblings have it that the US, in conjunction with the UN, is seeking to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state by the end of this year. We all know that the Obama administration represents a fundamental shift in US-Israeli relations. What if Palestine attacked Israel, as a sovereign state? The result will be official declarations of war between nation states. And we all know Israel will win that conflict ... unless the US has a "responsibility to protect."
And before you say "he'd never go that far", let me remind you how many times we've drawn that line and he's stepped over it, with glee.
And it doesn't have to be direct US/Israel conflict. We may simply withdraw our support. Arm the new Palestinian Army. Perhaps in the interest of "fairness" all of our strategic knowledge becomes available to both sides. There are many ways to fulfill this "responsibility." And Samantha Powers, whom is a White House foreign policy advisor and wife to "Regulation Czar" Cass Sustine, advocated that very policy. Divesting the billions in Israeli aide in favor of "investing" in a Palestinian State. She even acknowledged that it would be politically costly in the US. Tough to win Florida under those circumstances. But I'm convinced he'd accept one term in return for seeing his "fundamental transformations" take hold.
Oh, and by the way. If the thought of arming Palestinians is too much to consider, bare this in mind - SoS Clinton is to decide by tomorrow on whether we will arm the Libyan Rebels.
Do you know who they are? Because I don't. I'm sure there's fine people among them, but I also know that Al Qeada now controls a Libyan city to the South after the evacuation of Qaddafi's troops.
Something about all of this just doesn't feel right. Something is "off." My gut sees a bad moon rising.
{by the way - if you're a super computer, pulling key words and phrases out for analysis, you think this post my pop a hit on NSA or some security agency's radar? hehe}
Friday, March 25, 2011
Damn...
I'd love to blame Jambo for the Wisconsin Badger's loss to Butler last night, but I bet he didn't watch much of the game. I really had thought we could get past Butler... but for as fast and hard as we played the last 5.5 minutes of the game, you can't go 11.5 minutes at the half without a score and hope to keep winning.
It was a nail-biter, no question. The lead was cut to four points twice in the last five minutes... but it was just too much of a deficit to come back from. That hurt...
Still, we got farther than any other conference rival beside OSU... and they are the odds-on favorite to win the championship. No other Big Ten team (besides the damn Buckeyes) got as far as we did. No, Bo Ryan and the Boys did alright... I had them picked to go as far as the Elite Eight, so my bracket is all done now except for KU and OSU (and I have OSU out in the Eight... hehe, can't seem to think straight when it comes to college ball, I guess).
Anyway... don't sweat the loss, Jambo. I'm sure it wasn't your fault for watching the game.
It was a nail-biter, no question. The lead was cut to four points twice in the last five minutes... but it was just too much of a deficit to come back from. That hurt...
Still, we got farther than any other conference rival beside OSU... and they are the odds-on favorite to win the championship. No other Big Ten team (besides the damn Buckeyes) got as far as we did. No, Bo Ryan and the Boys did alright... I had them picked to go as far as the Elite Eight, so my bracket is all done now except for KU and OSU (and I have OSU out in the Eight... hehe, can't seem to think straight when it comes to college ball, I guess).
Anyway... don't sweat the loss, Jambo. I'm sure it wasn't your fault for watching the game.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Dare the word be uttered?
I was off today, and since yesterday was spent removing the 12+ inches of snow from my driveway and walkways, catching up on laundry and chores, and running the kids all over creation... it feels like my only day off.
So, like any good couch potato, I spent it being as lazy as possible. Watching some TV, cruising the Internet, eating like food was going out of style... you know the routine. But while I was doing one of my few chores today (fetching the 16 year old back from karate), I got to thinking about the problems we are facing in Libya.
Qaddafi is still in power, the rebels have been beaten back from almost every stong point they ever held, and the NATO air strikes have hurt the regime, but not reduced its ability to terrorize and murder civilians. All this has happened since Obama vowed to remove Qaddafi from power.
Obama has committed no fewer than seven surface vessels, three submarines (including the USS Scranton and the USS Providence), the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (2,200 Marines and their combat equipment), and more than 40 combat and combat support aircraft to the international effort now called "Operation Odyssey Dawn". Our servicemen have seen 5 days of combat service off the coast of Libya so far, and while the US isn't the sole nation with military men and hardware invested... we are by far the largest contingent.
What Obama hasn't done is ask Congress for approval for this whole thing. There hasn't been one request from the White House for even a gallon of aviation fuel or a lump of coal to help see this "coalition" effort to its inevitable end. Not even a "please" for one dollar of funding.
Now, I'm not the Constitutional scholar that Obama is... but if my poor memory serves, I think the President is expressly forbidden the ability to commit US military forces to combat actions that aren't directed against grave and imminent threats to US security. That enumerated power is given to Congress alone. Furthermore, wasn't it then-Senator Obama that felt (very strongly) that then-President Bush had superseded his authority by going "further than Congress had allowed" in Iraq? If Bush broke the law... surely, then Obama has as well, right? Bush had Congressional approval, while Obama hasn't even bothered to address Congress directly. They had to learn it through the Press Room just like the rest of America.
Am I wrong here? Has Obama made the "mother of all mistakes"? Doesn't this constitute a real instance of ignoring established and understood Constitutional law? What can he possibly say in his defense? He forgot? He thought they were behind him 100%? He was going to get to it as soon as he could? He can't even claim that American lives were in danger... the only Americans at risk in Libya are the servicemen he put there!!! He has expressed even LESS of a plan than Bush and Co. did in Iraq (and that is saying something, right there), and to the best of my knowledge, no one seems to know what our goals are in this effort. Are we there to remove Qaddafi? Are we there to ensure that the rebels remove Qaddafi? Are we there to protect Libyan civilians? Have the crimes against Libya's people finally become too numerous to ignore?
Could we possibly see the word "impeachment" in the future? If this whole fiasco is indeed un-Constitutional... could he be impeached? Or, at least, censured by Congress?
So, like any good couch potato, I spent it being as lazy as possible. Watching some TV, cruising the Internet, eating like food was going out of style... you know the routine. But while I was doing one of my few chores today (fetching the 16 year old back from karate), I got to thinking about the problems we are facing in Libya.
Qaddafi is still in power, the rebels have been beaten back from almost every stong point they ever held, and the NATO air strikes have hurt the regime, but not reduced its ability to terrorize and murder civilians. All this has happened since Obama vowed to remove Qaddafi from power.
Obama has committed no fewer than seven surface vessels, three submarines (including the USS Scranton and the USS Providence), the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (2,200 Marines and their combat equipment), and more than 40 combat and combat support aircraft to the international effort now called "Operation Odyssey Dawn". Our servicemen have seen 5 days of combat service off the coast of Libya so far, and while the US isn't the sole nation with military men and hardware invested... we are by far the largest contingent.
What Obama hasn't done is ask Congress for approval for this whole thing. There hasn't been one request from the White House for even a gallon of aviation fuel or a lump of coal to help see this "coalition" effort to its inevitable end. Not even a "please" for one dollar of funding.
Now, I'm not the Constitutional scholar that Obama is... but if my poor memory serves, I think the President is expressly forbidden the ability to commit US military forces to combat actions that aren't directed against grave and imminent threats to US security. That enumerated power is given to Congress alone. Furthermore, wasn't it then-Senator Obama that felt (very strongly) that then-President Bush had superseded his authority by going "further than Congress had allowed" in Iraq? If Bush broke the law... surely, then Obama has as well, right? Bush had Congressional approval, while Obama hasn't even bothered to address Congress directly. They had to learn it through the Press Room just like the rest of America.
Am I wrong here? Has Obama made the "mother of all mistakes"? Doesn't this constitute a real instance of ignoring established and understood Constitutional law? What can he possibly say in his defense? He forgot? He thought they were behind him 100%? He was going to get to it as soon as he could? He can't even claim that American lives were in danger... the only Americans at risk in Libya are the servicemen he put there!!! He has expressed even LESS of a plan than Bush and Co. did in Iraq (and that is saying something, right there), and to the best of my knowledge, no one seems to know what our goals are in this effort. Are we there to remove Qaddafi? Are we there to ensure that the rebels remove Qaddafi? Are we there to protect Libyan civilians? Have the crimes against Libya's people finally become too numerous to ignore?
Could we possibly see the word "impeachment" in the future? If this whole fiasco is indeed un-Constitutional... could he be impeached? Or, at least, censured by Congress?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Can anyone tell me why Qadaffi hasn't promoted himself?
I mean, what's the point of being a supreme dictator if you can't move yourself up from the rank of colonel?
Personally, I think it's so he can tell family members "no" when they ask for a job: "Look, I haven't even promoted myself to general, how can I make you one?"
At any rate, I have to make official amends. For some time (years in fact) I've poked fun at my Bund brethren for their obsession with sports. I often quipped that they couldn't start their day without knowing what athlete put what ball through what apparatus the night before. And while I'm still loathe to join fantasy leagues that do not include Carmen Electra (by the way, Carm baby, call me) I must say that my sons are disciples of ESPN and all things sport. In particular the NFL and NBA. Combined with that and my coaching their various school football and basketball teams (to respectable championships/appearances I might add), we are now a household with up to the minute info. This is a huge change for me. It wasn't long ago that were you to ask me about "Chicago's O-line" I would have assumed you were inquiring as to the net worth of Ms. Winfrey.
All that's changed now. And although I don't boast to knowing everybody and each detail, I do start my morning not with Fox News, nor Laura Ingraham, but Sports Nation, or Mike & Mike (depending on the hour I rise). The kids, although they'll indulge my political rants and history lessons, really light up when I get into the latest scores, trades, rule changes etc. So, I gotta stay informed brother.
Now hold that thought...
Some weeks ago I size into my $15 pitch game with the same enthusiasm any dice dealer would. Soon a gent sits down and asks if I can raise the minimum to $200. "Sure" I said. At my joint this happens all the time, and we are instructed to immediately comply. A quick head nod to the floor later, and I switch the sign. In comes this young guy $5k, cash. So we're clipping along at 2-$500 a hand and I start to chat. Now let me pause and remind you of my disdain for our shared business - I loathe it, and am diligently maneuvering a way out. And because of this I tend to steer the conversation towards subjects I like, to make my "time in" more bearable (like an inmate whom gets his law degree on the inside).
I start in - "So... you watch Band of Brothers?" Now bare in mind, a young guy, with long hair, a big watch, cash, I'm not expecting a good answer. And to be honest, I'm secretly asking so that when he asks me "what's that?", I can judge him and tuck him neatly into the "punk file" of my brain (a thick folder I might add). But he says, "I own every disc." Now we're off.
For an hour we discuss old war movies, the disturbing direction the nation is heading in, our shared disdain for "reality" TV (which is anything but). He's married, 2 kids, and in fact he was gambling at that late hour because he was waiting for them to go to bed before he attended the tables. And as I said, 28, 29-ish years old, a good guy.
And here's something - he kept pulling his sleeve over the rather gaudy watch he was wearing. And I noticed the bead necklace around his neck and bracelet on the opposite hand were made of wood. The watch just didn't fit. So I pipe up, "Don't take offense to this, but you don't seem the type of guy who needs that ostentatious watch, why are you wearing it?" Now not only did he know what ostentatious meant, he was relieved. Considered it a compliment that he didn't come off as "that type" of guy. And as it turns out, his wife bought it for him. He promised her to wear it in Vegas because he refused to at home. As he said, "I eat at a lot of blue collar cafes, and I don't want to be that guy."
Moving on, it turns out he has repeatedly considered joining the military, the reserves. Now knowing he must make a handsome living, I found that rather admirable. In fact, twice he was set to do it but his wife threw a fit. She was terrified he'd lose his job, or worse. And I get that. But I made a point to tell him that by law your employer has to hold your job if you're a reservist and you're called up or have scheduled training.
"Not my job." That was his answer.
Now, I'm a savvy enough dealer not to flat disagree with a player, so I go the end round.
"Where you from?" (we never got that far, we were busy with Flying Leathernecks).
"D.C", he says, "But I live in Cleavland."
"You move there for work?" (you like my end run into establishing a conversation about how his employer must allow him leave time?)
"Ya."
"Well, what do you do?" I ask.
"I play kick return and wide receiver for the Cleavland Browns."
Now I was ready to take a lot of answers seriously, but not that one. I laugh (not sure if he's pulling my leg), and ask jokingly, "You any good?" "Pretty good", he replies. So on break I go down and Google the name I saw on his "Total Rewards" player's card. It turns out that Joshua Cribbs, #16 for the Browns, is a 2 time pro bowler, and as an analyst for ESPN.com put it, "One of the most dangerous punt returners in the history of the game", at 20+ yards per return. And apparently, with LeBron gone, he has become "the" man in Cleavland.
I came back up, told him how modest he was, and he laughed. I then asked him to sign an autograph for my kids. He insisted, insisted now, on two pieces of paper so they could each have their own. And for my elder boy's birthday I framed it with a trading card of Cribbs above it (one for each of them). Particularly cool given there sat their name, "To ..." for all their friends to see at the party. Both frames hang on their wall as I write this.
Now reenter my waking up to ESPN, this morning. And there is Cribbs, on the phone, pissed to beat hell. Apparently the NFL owners, in all their wisdom, have chosen to alter the kick off. Now it will be from the 35 instead of the 30. And the coverage players on the kick off team may no longer get a 10 to 15 yard running start. They have to remain within 5 yards of the ball at the time of the kick. It's ludicrous, this is FOOTBALL. And as Cribbs put it, "It's BS to think this will enhance safety." He pointed out that at that level you only need 5 yards to build up a head of steam that can hurt somebody - and he's right. And he has good reason to be mad beyond that. That 5 yard adjustment means a lot more touch backs. And as Josh added, "People don't pay money to see the ball spotted."
But that's not all - in addition to the 3 red challenges the coaches get (which I also loathe), EVERY touchdown will now be reviewed by the booth to ensure its' legitimacy. Asinine. They're slowing the game to a halt. And why? Well, the longer the game, the more advertising you sell, TV timeouts being especially numerous during lengthy "reviews." And hey, I'm a capitalist of the first order. But there's a Laffer curve to everything, and this is damaging the crisp pace of the game (if you ask me). Add in the heavy fines for questionable helmet to helmet hits this past season (questionable in their status as a true penalty), and you can see why the Rugby guys make fun. As I said, this is football. If I wanted to watch an excruciatingly slow game with near zero scoring I'd watch soccer.
Of course, I'd be inclined to agree with Cribbs here no matter what - the man loved "The Longest Day", so I'm sold.
And by the way. Cribb's parents? They're Marines. Both of them... which explains a whole helluva lot.
Personally, I think it's so he can tell family members "no" when they ask for a job: "Look, I haven't even promoted myself to general, how can I make you one?"
At any rate, I have to make official amends. For some time (years in fact) I've poked fun at my Bund brethren for their obsession with sports. I often quipped that they couldn't start their day without knowing what athlete put what ball through what apparatus the night before. And while I'm still loathe to join fantasy leagues that do not include Carmen Electra (by the way, Carm baby, call me) I must say that my sons are disciples of ESPN and all things sport. In particular the NFL and NBA. Combined with that and my coaching their various school football and basketball teams (to respectable championships/appearances I might add), we are now a household with up to the minute info. This is a huge change for me. It wasn't long ago that were you to ask me about "Chicago's O-line" I would have assumed you were inquiring as to the net worth of Ms. Winfrey.
All that's changed now. And although I don't boast to knowing everybody and each detail, I do start my morning not with Fox News, nor Laura Ingraham, but Sports Nation, or Mike & Mike (depending on the hour I rise). The kids, although they'll indulge my political rants and history lessons, really light up when I get into the latest scores, trades, rule changes etc. So, I gotta stay informed brother.
Now hold that thought...
Some weeks ago I size into my $15 pitch game with the same enthusiasm any dice dealer would. Soon a gent sits down and asks if I can raise the minimum to $200. "Sure" I said. At my joint this happens all the time, and we are instructed to immediately comply. A quick head nod to the floor later, and I switch the sign. In comes this young guy $5k, cash. So we're clipping along at 2-$500 a hand and I start to chat. Now let me pause and remind you of my disdain for our shared business - I loathe it, and am diligently maneuvering a way out. And because of this I tend to steer the conversation towards subjects I like, to make my "time in" more bearable (like an inmate whom gets his law degree on the inside).
I start in - "So... you watch Band of Brothers?" Now bare in mind, a young guy, with long hair, a big watch, cash, I'm not expecting a good answer. And to be honest, I'm secretly asking so that when he asks me "what's that?", I can judge him and tuck him neatly into the "punk file" of my brain (a thick folder I might add). But he says, "I own every disc." Now we're off.
For an hour we discuss old war movies, the disturbing direction the nation is heading in, our shared disdain for "reality" TV (which is anything but). He's married, 2 kids, and in fact he was gambling at that late hour because he was waiting for them to go to bed before he attended the tables. And as I said, 28, 29-ish years old, a good guy.
And here's something - he kept pulling his sleeve over the rather gaudy watch he was wearing. And I noticed the bead necklace around his neck and bracelet on the opposite hand were made of wood. The watch just didn't fit. So I pipe up, "Don't take offense to this, but you don't seem the type of guy who needs that ostentatious watch, why are you wearing it?" Now not only did he know what ostentatious meant, he was relieved. Considered it a compliment that he didn't come off as "that type" of guy. And as it turns out, his wife bought it for him. He promised her to wear it in Vegas because he refused to at home. As he said, "I eat at a lot of blue collar cafes, and I don't want to be that guy."
Moving on, it turns out he has repeatedly considered joining the military, the reserves. Now knowing he must make a handsome living, I found that rather admirable. In fact, twice he was set to do it but his wife threw a fit. She was terrified he'd lose his job, or worse. And I get that. But I made a point to tell him that by law your employer has to hold your job if you're a reservist and you're called up or have scheduled training.
"Not my job." That was his answer.
Now, I'm a savvy enough dealer not to flat disagree with a player, so I go the end round.
"Where you from?" (we never got that far, we were busy with Flying Leathernecks).
"D.C", he says, "But I live in Cleavland."
"You move there for work?" (you like my end run into establishing a conversation about how his employer must allow him leave time?)
"Ya."
"Well, what do you do?" I ask.
"I play kick return and wide receiver for the Cleavland Browns."
Now I was ready to take a lot of answers seriously, but not that one. I laugh (not sure if he's pulling my leg), and ask jokingly, "You any good?" "Pretty good", he replies. So on break I go down and Google the name I saw on his "Total Rewards" player's card. It turns out that Joshua Cribbs, #16 for the Browns, is a 2 time pro bowler, and as an analyst for ESPN.com put it, "One of the most dangerous punt returners in the history of the game", at 20+ yards per return. And apparently, with LeBron gone, he has become "the" man in Cleavland.
I came back up, told him how modest he was, and he laughed. I then asked him to sign an autograph for my kids. He insisted, insisted now, on two pieces of paper so they could each have their own. And for my elder boy's birthday I framed it with a trading card of Cribbs above it (one for each of them). Particularly cool given there sat their name, "To ..." for all their friends to see at the party. Both frames hang on their wall as I write this.
Now reenter my waking up to ESPN, this morning. And there is Cribbs, on the phone, pissed to beat hell. Apparently the NFL owners, in all their wisdom, have chosen to alter the kick off. Now it will be from the 35 instead of the 30. And the coverage players on the kick off team may no longer get a 10 to 15 yard running start. They have to remain within 5 yards of the ball at the time of the kick. It's ludicrous, this is FOOTBALL. And as Cribbs put it, "It's BS to think this will enhance safety." He pointed out that at that level you only need 5 yards to build up a head of steam that can hurt somebody - and he's right. And he has good reason to be mad beyond that. That 5 yard adjustment means a lot more touch backs. And as Josh added, "People don't pay money to see the ball spotted."
But that's not all - in addition to the 3 red challenges the coaches get (which I also loathe), EVERY touchdown will now be reviewed by the booth to ensure its' legitimacy. Asinine. They're slowing the game to a halt. And why? Well, the longer the game, the more advertising you sell, TV timeouts being especially numerous during lengthy "reviews." And hey, I'm a capitalist of the first order. But there's a Laffer curve to everything, and this is damaging the crisp pace of the game (if you ask me). Add in the heavy fines for questionable helmet to helmet hits this past season (questionable in their status as a true penalty), and you can see why the Rugby guys make fun. As I said, this is football. If I wanted to watch an excruciatingly slow game with near zero scoring I'd watch soccer.
Of course, I'd be inclined to agree with Cribbs here no matter what - the man loved "The Longest Day", so I'm sold.
And by the way. Cribb's parents? They're Marines. Both of them... which explains a whole helluva lot.
Dear God...
Another foot of snow fell last night, and another school day was cancelled.
I'm off to remove another 90' of snow from the driveway and stoop...
(sigh)
I'm off to remove another 90' of snow from the driveway and stoop...
(sigh)
On the seperation of Church and State...
It seems that several studies from private organizations have determined that Christianity is suffering more persecution than any other religion in the world. Several of these studies quote the Vatican's recent determination (and the reason for one of Pope Benedict's recent speeches) that the treatment of Christians around the world is falling from very bad to worse in more than 22 nations, and that 75% of all religious persecution being perpetrated is being done to Christian minorities.
I'm really not sure what the facts here are. I haven't linked the article because I find the article so shockingly biased and one-sided, it borders on right-wing... but I thought the topic worth commenting on, because we have mentioned it here numerous times in the past.
Benedict XVI has said that the safety and religious freedoms of million of Christians throughout the Muslim world is anything but secure, and he has repeatedly called for moderate minds to maintain a degree of control so that Christians in Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, and Tunisia are afforded at least the basic rights of religion that Muslim majorities are afforded.
The article in question repeatedly question America's (and specifically Obama's) tendency to overcompensate for imagined or perceived "injustice" by placing American or foreign Muslims in positions of trust and council, "to avoid the spectre of anti-Muslim perception" by the rest of the world. If this is actually happening, then it is indeed a tragedy... but not because it furthers radical Islam's goals... it is because the religious affiliation of a prospective governmental appointee should never be a deciding factor in their appointment.
We are a diverse and varied culture among the societies of the world, and we need never venture beyond the FACT that so many varied peoples and beliefs are represented in our society when it comes to making up our representative government. Placing Muslims (regardless of national origin) in positions of trust simply to be able to say that we "understand" the Muslim traditions and needs voiced by the radicals in places like Afghanistan or Yemen is (as the article says) a grave risk to our national security... because it compromises our national principles, not because it puts radical elements within our government.
Where the article fails is in the author's misunderstanding of the concept of the "separation of Church and State". There is no Constitutional requirement for this separation... period. Congress cannot establish a national religion, that is true... but nothing beyond that is required by the Constitution. The very concept of this separation stems from Jefferson's words concerning Government's interference with Church affairs, especially within the Church of England where Parliament had the authority to dictate religious matters to the nation. In short, Jefferson wanted to keep Government out of Church affairs... he wasn't "obsessed" with keeping religion out of government affairs, as the author of this article seems to think. This is why our founding documents place the "freedom of religion" as high as it does... one after another makes sure that the right to practice faith as we please is guaranteed from the first (literally), NOT that those of faith or the faith of some be denied because of the practices of another.
There is, indeed, real persecution happening in this world due to religion... and much of it is pointed at Christians. Even in this country, being a practicing Christian has a stigma that other faiths don't carry... intolerance, racism, bigotry. It is unfortunate and it is something we need to stamp out... but it isn't something that I feel can be DICTATED to us via the government. All faiths are afforded the same protected rights of religious practice, but not all are viewed equally by the political machine of the modern day.
THAT is what is wrong with America today.
I'm really not sure what the facts here are. I haven't linked the article because I find the article so shockingly biased and one-sided, it borders on right-wing... but I thought the topic worth commenting on, because we have mentioned it here numerous times in the past.
Benedict XVI has said that the safety and religious freedoms of million of Christians throughout the Muslim world is anything but secure, and he has repeatedly called for moderate minds to maintain a degree of control so that Christians in Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, and Tunisia are afforded at least the basic rights of religion that Muslim majorities are afforded.
The article in question repeatedly question America's (and specifically Obama's) tendency to overcompensate for imagined or perceived "injustice" by placing American or foreign Muslims in positions of trust and council, "to avoid the spectre of anti-Muslim perception" by the rest of the world. If this is actually happening, then it is indeed a tragedy... but not because it furthers radical Islam's goals... it is because the religious affiliation of a prospective governmental appointee should never be a deciding factor in their appointment.
We are a diverse and varied culture among the societies of the world, and we need never venture beyond the FACT that so many varied peoples and beliefs are represented in our society when it comes to making up our representative government. Placing Muslims (regardless of national origin) in positions of trust simply to be able to say that we "understand" the Muslim traditions and needs voiced by the radicals in places like Afghanistan or Yemen is (as the article says) a grave risk to our national security... because it compromises our national principles, not because it puts radical elements within our government.
Where the article fails is in the author's misunderstanding of the concept of the "separation of Church and State". There is no Constitutional requirement for this separation... period. Congress cannot establish a national religion, that is true... but nothing beyond that is required by the Constitution. The very concept of this separation stems from Jefferson's words concerning Government's interference with Church affairs, especially within the Church of England where Parliament had the authority to dictate religious matters to the nation. In short, Jefferson wanted to keep Government out of Church affairs... he wasn't "obsessed" with keeping religion out of government affairs, as the author of this article seems to think. This is why our founding documents place the "freedom of religion" as high as it does... one after another makes sure that the right to practice faith as we please is guaranteed from the first (literally), NOT that those of faith or the faith of some be denied because of the practices of another.
There is, indeed, real persecution happening in this world due to religion... and much of it is pointed at Christians. Even in this country, being a practicing Christian has a stigma that other faiths don't carry... intolerance, racism, bigotry. It is unfortunate and it is something we need to stamp out... but it isn't something that I feel can be DICTATED to us via the government. All faiths are afforded the same protected rights of religious practice, but not all are viewed equally by the political machine of the modern day.
THAT is what is wrong with America today.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Political journalism, Post-style...
The Washington Post ran a commentary about possible GOP candidate for 2012 Haley Barbour... and it is a damn telling piece.
Acerbic, to say the least. The author focuses on Barbour's rather lengthy past in politics, and why that past is his biggest handicap in the possible run for the White House in 2012. It would seem that Barbour's greatest handicap is his rather extensive network of conservative supporters across the country. That is what a forty year career brings to the table, people... a big network of supporters.
The article labels him "an insider's insider"... which I take to mean the author thinks he'll work tirelessly to maintain the "machine" of contemporary politics. Yes, he worked for years as a political lawyer and lobbyist, going all the way back to the Ford Administration. Yes, he represented "Tobacco" and "Big Oil". Yes, he has a Southern accent. Yes, he has said things that raised eyebrows in regards to current national sensitivity surrounding race issues. Yes, he grew up in the Mississippi Delta region during a time when segregation and racial tensions were the norm, not the exception.
The author makes repeated reference to the "new age" of politics that confronts both America in general, and the GOP in particular... which I take to mean the "Age of Obama". A time when all racial barriers are down and forgotten, unless you are a white male from the South; when representatives of special interest groups focused on under-privileged populations are called "community organizers" rather than lobbyists; when being a political lawyer is only "acceptable" when your intended focus is on the failings of the national government, and not on its successes; when it is wrong for a white Southerner to wear a gold Rolex watch but it is alright for a black First Lady to spend $87,000 in taxpayer money on clothing while on vacation in France.
The author seems convinced that Barbour represents all that is wrong with American politics, while Obama and the liberal/progressive movement of the DNC holds up all that is right. There is far more that is different between Obama and Barbour than simply the color of their skin or their political party affiliations... one has had a long and very successful career leading large segments of this nations population (the majority of which were African American, I might add) for the better part of a decade, while the other has shown a rather brief but spectacular ability to promise things that cannot be delivered. Both are lawyers, both have represented the special interests of very specific groups of people against the interests of the majority, and both have held the reigns of high executive office under the spotlight of national attention... but only one has delivered time and time again on his promises and goals.
Looking at only the same year-to-year time frame from the moment Barack Obama came into elected office and the national spotlight, Haley Barbour has accomplished more for the people he represented and the nation as a whole than Obama has even attempted. The author of this article can mock the people of the good State of Mississippi as much or as often as she likes... labeling them as "ranked at or near the bottom in pretty much every measure of its residents’ well-being" and blame this solely and squarely on Barbour... but it doesn't CHANGE THE FACT that the very same people elected Barbour by a vast majority not once, but twice, and he carried the "black vote" too. Revenues in MS have gone UP, taxes have stayed LOW, services have improved, infrastructure has expanded, education scores have gone through the roof, college enrollments are higher than ever (no matter what color the student's skin)... that isn't only HOPE and CHANGE from the old status quo... but it is also results on promises made.
Where does the current Administration put the details of their results? I'd love to look them over before the election cycle begins.
Acerbic, to say the least. The author focuses on Barbour's rather lengthy past in politics, and why that past is his biggest handicap in the possible run for the White House in 2012. It would seem that Barbour's greatest handicap is his rather extensive network of conservative supporters across the country. That is what a forty year career brings to the table, people... a big network of supporters.
The article labels him "an insider's insider"... which I take to mean the author thinks he'll work tirelessly to maintain the "machine" of contemporary politics. Yes, he worked for years as a political lawyer and lobbyist, going all the way back to the Ford Administration. Yes, he represented "Tobacco" and "Big Oil". Yes, he has a Southern accent. Yes, he has said things that raised eyebrows in regards to current national sensitivity surrounding race issues. Yes, he grew up in the Mississippi Delta region during a time when segregation and racial tensions were the norm, not the exception.
The author makes repeated reference to the "new age" of politics that confronts both America in general, and the GOP in particular... which I take to mean the "Age of Obama". A time when all racial barriers are down and forgotten, unless you are a white male from the South; when representatives of special interest groups focused on under-privileged populations are called "community organizers" rather than lobbyists; when being a political lawyer is only "acceptable" when your intended focus is on the failings of the national government, and not on its successes; when it is wrong for a white Southerner to wear a gold Rolex watch but it is alright for a black First Lady to spend $87,000 in taxpayer money on clothing while on vacation in France.
The author seems convinced that Barbour represents all that is wrong with American politics, while Obama and the liberal/progressive movement of the DNC holds up all that is right. There is far more that is different between Obama and Barbour than simply the color of their skin or their political party affiliations... one has had a long and very successful career leading large segments of this nations population (the majority of which were African American, I might add) for the better part of a decade, while the other has shown a rather brief but spectacular ability to promise things that cannot be delivered. Both are lawyers, both have represented the special interests of very specific groups of people against the interests of the majority, and both have held the reigns of high executive office under the spotlight of national attention... but only one has delivered time and time again on his promises and goals.
Looking at only the same year-to-year time frame from the moment Barack Obama came into elected office and the national spotlight, Haley Barbour has accomplished more for the people he represented and the nation as a whole than Obama has even attempted. The author of this article can mock the people of the good State of Mississippi as much or as often as she likes... labeling them as "ranked at or near the bottom in pretty much every measure of its residents’ well-being" and blame this solely and squarely on Barbour... but it doesn't CHANGE THE FACT that the very same people elected Barbour by a vast majority not once, but twice, and he carried the "black vote" too. Revenues in MS have gone UP, taxes have stayed LOW, services have improved, infrastructure has expanded, education scores have gone through the roof, college enrollments are higher than ever (no matter what color the student's skin)... that isn't only HOPE and CHANGE from the old status quo... but it is also results on promises made.
Where does the current Administration put the details of their results? I'd love to look them over before the election cycle begins.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Fair enough...
Like our discussion about the Italian Campaign, this is one that probably has no conclusion. When the men making the plans are working in uncharted waters the way Doolittle, LeMay, and the rest of the Strategic Bomber Command were (both US and British) from '42 onward, its hard to pin down where mistakes were made that warrant blame... only that mistakes were made.
The cost in brave American and British lives to both (A) destroy targets that the Germans were sure to protect with (B) fighters they couldn't afford to lose is unfathomable and very, very real... but it is almost impossible to make the case that it was WRONG to put them at risk in the first place. I know that neither Jambo or Ryan were saying that... and Jambo's final post was very clear.
Ultimately, the blame lies with the Nazi High Command... they planned the war, they fought the war, and they refused to quit fighting the war until Hitler was dead in May of '45. Sad, but painfully true that tens of millions of lives were lost to the whims of a few dozen crack-pot fascists, and that the very face of the entire world was changed in the effort to remove them from power.
The cost in brave American and British lives to both (A) destroy targets that the Germans were sure to protect with (B) fighters they couldn't afford to lose is unfathomable and very, very real... but it is almost impossible to make the case that it was WRONG to put them at risk in the first place. I know that neither Jambo or Ryan were saying that... and Jambo's final post was very clear.
Ultimately, the blame lies with the Nazi High Command... they planned the war, they fought the war, and they refused to quit fighting the war until Hitler was dead in May of '45. Sad, but painfully true that tens of millions of lives were lost to the whims of a few dozen crack-pot fascists, and that the very face of the entire world was changed in the effort to remove them from power.
I thought I was pretty clear
But just in case...
My beef wasn't with the strategy. Doolittle had to get the fighters off the ground to kill them. My beef was the fact that 70 years go by and the common line of thinking was not the attrition strategy but the desire to continue precision daylight bombing. My neighbor growing up, Neil Walworth... He flew a B-24, was shot down in 1945 and finished the war as a POW. Does it matter that from January 1944 till after D-Day the primary focus of the 8th was aiming the bomber groups at targets the German fighters HAD to defend? Does that make Neil's sacrifice any less? Because Doolittle needed the fighters dead more than the targets bombed?
Why is this strategy just seeing the light of day now?
I'm not mad at Doolittle. I'm not mad at Eisenhower. I'm not mad at Marshall, Churchill or FDR. I'm mad that a MAJOR facet of Allied strategy has continued to be glossed over historically. If I've come across any other way I am sorry.
My beef wasn't with the strategy. Doolittle had to get the fighters off the ground to kill them. My beef was the fact that 70 years go by and the common line of thinking was not the attrition strategy but the desire to continue precision daylight bombing. My neighbor growing up, Neil Walworth... He flew a B-24, was shot down in 1945 and finished the war as a POW. Does it matter that from January 1944 till after D-Day the primary focus of the 8th was aiming the bomber groups at targets the German fighters HAD to defend? Does that make Neil's sacrifice any less? Because Doolittle needed the fighters dead more than the targets bombed?
Why is this strategy just seeing the light of day now?
I'm not mad at Doolittle. I'm not mad at Eisenhower. I'm not mad at Marshall, Churchill or FDR. I'm mad that a MAJOR facet of Allied strategy has continued to be glossed over historically. If I've come across any other way I am sorry.
Oy, Rooney...
As soon as I saw the name flashed on the screen beneath the black and white photo I said to myself, "not 60 minutes Andy Rooney." More pleading then stating. Alright, alright. Although he didn't pilot, he did fly the missions, he was a war correspondent (taking back the message of daylight precision bombing strategy no less, hehe), he was there, his life was at risk, he served honorably. Thus I will attempt to refrain from any derogatory comments of him in the future, he earned that, at least.
But I ain't watchin' 60 Minutes.
But I ain't watchin' 60 Minutes.
Okay, but...
Even if we look at the period of Doolittle's command of the Eighth AAF as the start of the campaign to draw out the German fighters, we can't ignore the fact that "strategic bombing" had been an established strategy of the Allies for at least a full year prior.
So, I'm asking you... What was Doolittle's primary duty (if not immediate goal)? Destroy or impede German infrastructure and morale through overwhelming application of Allied strategic bombing efforts (the textbook definition of "strategic bombing in WWII"), or "to impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to conserve German fighter force away from the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war" , as established in the Casablanca Directive of Jan '43? Both ends were served, and both goals met. I understand that questions exist about the means by which those goals were met... but "strategic bombing" of the sort we are discussing was all but unheard of prior to the outbreak of WWII, so alternatives were not only unknown but unknowable. Basically, the Allies had only the experiences of the British during the Blitz to measure cause and effect by... and those effects were not in favor of the effort anyway (since British morale wasn't impeded by German bombing they way Hitler had hoped it would be).
Are we "mad" at the mainstream view of history that has ignored the Casablanca Directive for the better part of 60 years? Who are we mad at? Surely, not Doolittle... right?
So, I'm asking you... What was Doolittle's primary duty (if not immediate goal)? Destroy or impede German infrastructure and morale through overwhelming application of Allied strategic bombing efforts (the textbook definition of "strategic bombing in WWII"), or "to impose heavy losses on German day fighter force and to conserve German fighter force away from the Russian and Mediterranean theatres of war" , as established in the Casablanca Directive of Jan '43? Both ends were served, and both goals met. I understand that questions exist about the means by which those goals were met... but "strategic bombing" of the sort we are discussing was all but unheard of prior to the outbreak of WWII, so alternatives were not only unknown but unknowable. Basically, the Allies had only the experiences of the British during the Blitz to measure cause and effect by... and those effects were not in favor of the effort anyway (since British morale wasn't impeded by German bombing they way Hitler had hoped it would be).
Are we "mad" at the mainstream view of history that has ignored the Casablanca Directive for the better part of 60 years? Who are we mad at? Surely, not Doolittle... right?
primary vs. secondary
These were the terms I used.
In other words, I never meant to completely discount the validity of the bombing runs as an ends unto themselves, but I think a few things are quite clear. Those particular months weren't intended to scare the holy bat snot out of the German populous. Done that though it might have, that wasn't Doolittle's aim. The runs were intended to clear the air space for the Normandy invasion and the Western front in general. And while you can certainly make the case that bombing railways, bridges, and roads to Normandy aided the invasion by denying resupply routes to the Jerrys, I think that was of secondary concern to putting the hurt on the Luftwaffe fighters. And the Berlin bound missions were solely for the purpose of drawing out Goering's boys.
To put it another way, in March of 44' the primary focus of the USAF/RAF was very narrow - ensure the success of the imminent Dday invasion. It wasn't a grand, reduce their capacity to wage war plan. In that light there is only one reason to venture that far into Germany, into Berlin herself... 70% of the German fighter force was stationed within fighting distance of the city.
I think Jambo was so passionate (not to put words in his mouth) not because dropping those loads were of zero value, but rather because the bait and hook strategy was never discussed (as a part of the American tale). And I think he was a little bothered by not coming to the realization of Doolittle's strategy before now (of which he is not alone, I was taken aback by this discovery myself). And I do share Jambo's frustration in this aspect's omission from standard history lessons, if for no other reason then it adds to the heroism, the tale of the 8th.
At any rate, my overall point is that if the primary goal was to draw out the Krauts, that doesn't necessitate that the secondary goal, dropping the pay loads, was of no value whatsoever.
And let me just say something about Jambo's "unsavory" comment. Maybe I'm taking that wrong, but I didn't get anything nefarious out of this. I would wager the croc dollar that using American fly boys as "bait" bothered no one more than Doolittle. In this program they made it quite clear that there was a dedication to total war, winning at any cost, and they had no choice but to use this strategy, for one reason and one reason only - it was working. No other approach was going to allow for the German air forces to be thinned. Not doing so would have gotten even more Allied men killed, that was my take away from this.
In other words, I never meant to completely discount the validity of the bombing runs as an ends unto themselves, but I think a few things are quite clear. Those particular months weren't intended to scare the holy bat snot out of the German populous. Done that though it might have, that wasn't Doolittle's aim. The runs were intended to clear the air space for the Normandy invasion and the Western front in general. And while you can certainly make the case that bombing railways, bridges, and roads to Normandy aided the invasion by denying resupply routes to the Jerrys, I think that was of secondary concern to putting the hurt on the Luftwaffe fighters. And the Berlin bound missions were solely for the purpose of drawing out Goering's boys.
To put it another way, in March of 44' the primary focus of the USAF/RAF was very narrow - ensure the success of the imminent Dday invasion. It wasn't a grand, reduce their capacity to wage war plan. In that light there is only one reason to venture that far into Germany, into Berlin herself... 70% of the German fighter force was stationed within fighting distance of the city.
I think Jambo was so passionate (not to put words in his mouth) not because dropping those loads were of zero value, but rather because the bait and hook strategy was never discussed (as a part of the American tale). And I think he was a little bothered by not coming to the realization of Doolittle's strategy before now (of which he is not alone, I was taken aback by this discovery myself). And I do share Jambo's frustration in this aspect's omission from standard history lessons, if for no other reason then it adds to the heroism, the tale of the 8th.
At any rate, my overall point is that if the primary goal was to draw out the Krauts, that doesn't necessitate that the secondary goal, dropping the pay loads, was of no value whatsoever.
And let me just say something about Jambo's "unsavory" comment. Maybe I'm taking that wrong, but I didn't get anything nefarious out of this. I would wager the croc dollar that using American fly boys as "bait" bothered no one more than Doolittle. In this program they made it quite clear that there was a dedication to total war, winning at any cost, and they had no choice but to use this strategy, for one reason and one reason only - it was working. No other approach was going to allow for the German air forces to be thinned. Not doing so would have gotten even more Allied men killed, that was my take away from this.
Again, not betting the croc dollar...
But the first American daylight raid into Germany was Bremershaven and I believe it was late February, early March 1944. (If not during Big Week, immediately after) The tactical and strategic decision to use the bombers as bait doesn't come down the pipe until Gen James Doolittle takes command of the 8th Army Air Force in January, 1944. It was Doolittle's job to get air supremacy. So from Jan 1944 on, the idea of precision daylight bombing shortening the war was the mantra fed to the public and the troops.
Let's not forget a couple of things.
1) It worked. Jimmy Doolittle was right, however horrific the costs. He attacked targets the Germans HAD to defend, and gutted their fighter force to do so.
2) This cannot be debated in a time where no one seems to know/appreciate TOTAL WAR. What bugged the camel piss out of me is that this mantra of precision bombing from January 1944 to the end of the war is STILL being sung... When it obviously was not the case. It almost borders on revisionism, except for the whole "this is the song we sang in '45, let's keep singing it now in 2011!" thing. We acknowledge two flag raising's on Iwo Jima because there were TWO flag raising's on Iwo Jima... A little known fact until recent publicity and a couple of movies. After the surrender of Corrigedor (sp?) we lost a little more than 22% of our surrendered troops in one march, the Bataan death march. After the 6th Army's surrender in Stalingrad, Von Paulus lost 95% of his men, dead. AFTER THE SURRENDER. Almost 95000 men went into captivity in January 1943, less than five thousand came back after May of 1945. Is this hidden? Lied about? Just because its lost in the brutality of the Eastern Front doesn't mean it is distorted.
The use of bombers as bait to flush the German fighter force in the six months before D Day was a documented, real policy. Why did it take nearly seventy years for a documentary to say it? How many World At War, Time Life specials, History Channel series, Military/Wings Channel shows did we wade through BEFORE WWII in HD/The Air War?
And Ryan, have to ask. Will you ever look at Andy Rooney the same way again? I ALMOST want to start watching 60 Minutes on CBS BECAUSE that's Andy Rooney.
Almost. Hahaha.
Let's not forget a couple of things.
1) It worked. Jimmy Doolittle was right, however horrific the costs. He attacked targets the Germans HAD to defend, and gutted their fighter force to do so.
2) This cannot be debated in a time where no one seems to know/appreciate TOTAL WAR. What bugged the camel piss out of me is that this mantra of precision bombing from January 1944 to the end of the war is STILL being sung... When it obviously was not the case. It almost borders on revisionism, except for the whole "this is the song we sang in '45, let's keep singing it now in 2011!" thing. We acknowledge two flag raising's on Iwo Jima because there were TWO flag raising's on Iwo Jima... A little known fact until recent publicity and a couple of movies. After the surrender of Corrigedor (sp?) we lost a little more than 22% of our surrendered troops in one march, the Bataan death march. After the 6th Army's surrender in Stalingrad, Von Paulus lost 95% of his men, dead. AFTER THE SURRENDER. Almost 95000 men went into captivity in January 1943, less than five thousand came back after May of 1945. Is this hidden? Lied about? Just because its lost in the brutality of the Eastern Front doesn't mean it is distorted.
The use of bombers as bait to flush the German fighter force in the six months before D Day was a documented, real policy. Why did it take nearly seventy years for a documentary to say it? How many World At War, Time Life specials, History Channel series, Military/Wings Channel shows did we wade through BEFORE WWII in HD/The Air War?
And Ryan, have to ask. Will you ever look at Andy Rooney the same way again? I ALMOST want to start watching 60 Minutes on CBS BECAUSE that's Andy Rooney.
Almost. Hahaha.
One more point...
Forgot to say this, too...
While Jambo's figures are accurate, he did omit some important ones. Yes, military equipment and munitions production did go UP near the end of the war... but I feel that was in spite of Allied efforts, not because the efforts by the Allies were a ruse de guerre to draw out German fighters. After '43, Germany moved much of its production facilities to remote locations in the east... away from Allied bomber range (and into what would become the Soviet sphere of influence, by the way) AND (very important) much closer to Polish and Romanian coal fields, were there were still ample sources of fuel.
Allied strategic bombing had made the delivery of coal (the primary fuel of German industry) utterly unavailable for delivery by either rail or waterway by the end of the summer of '44 (call it September) anywhere in the Ruhr valley. It is this shortage of coal that was responsible for so many civilian deaths later on, when the millions of homeless Germans had no means to keep warm through the winter of '45-'46. If we failed to actually destroy factories and munitions plants... we certainly succeeded in destroying the means by which those factories and plants operated effectively, and that cannot be ignored, can it?
While Jambo's figures are accurate, he did omit some important ones. Yes, military equipment and munitions production did go UP near the end of the war... but I feel that was in spite of Allied efforts, not because the efforts by the Allies were a ruse de guerre to draw out German fighters. After '43, Germany moved much of its production facilities to remote locations in the east... away from Allied bomber range (and into what would become the Soviet sphere of influence, by the way) AND (very important) much closer to Polish and Romanian coal fields, were there were still ample sources of fuel.
Allied strategic bombing had made the delivery of coal (the primary fuel of German industry) utterly unavailable for delivery by either rail or waterway by the end of the summer of '44 (call it September) anywhere in the Ruhr valley. It is this shortage of coal that was responsible for so many civilian deaths later on, when the millions of homeless Germans had no means to keep warm through the winter of '45-'46. If we failed to actually destroy factories and munitions plants... we certainly succeeded in destroying the means by which those factories and plants operated effectively, and that cannot be ignored, can it?
I have a question...
I understand the failings of "precision strategic bombing" in WWII... less then 7% of ALL munitions delivered fell within 1000 feet of intended targets, which pretty much removes "precision" from the equation all together.
However, these precision bombing strategies went into effect beginning in May of 1942... the P-51 wasn't entered into the USAAF as a service-ready fighter until early in 1944 (late '43 for the Brits). That is more than an entire year of strategic bombing that cannot be blamed on a "bait and hook" strategy from the CIC of the US Eighth Air Force like Doolittle. More to the point, the bombing strategy was tabled until such time as an adequately capable fighter escort should become available at the end of '43... and the P-51 was that fighter. Sending the bombers over the cities unescorted was a controversial move, I'm sure... but it was always my understanding that the daylight bombers of the US command (B-17s mostly) were intended to fly higher than escorts could anyway... to avoid AA and enemy countermeasures (ground-level smoke screens are less effective if viewed from higher up, I guess).
My question is: How can the "percision strategic bombing" strategy have been a lie fabricated to cover the use of US and British bombers as bait so that Allied fighters could beat up German fighters... when prior to the start of '44, there were no fighters available that could escort even as far as the actual German frontier? Spitfires and P-38s didn't have the legs or the guns to go up against the Germans and win consistently... so there must have been an actual "plan" behind the plan, right?
Look, I'm really asking... I didn't see the show you guys did, and while I understand the argument that strategic bombing was NOT the success that it was proported to be at the time, the utter destruction of places like Hamburg, Dresden, Bochum, Mainz and Cologne due to such efforts cannot be completely ignored, can they? 305,000 dead, 7.5 million homeless, 91% of the survivors stating that the "bombing" was what told them the war was lost (beginning in early '44, by the way) and 75% of them blaming the Luftwaffe and the Nazis for not stopping it... surely these numbers show that SOME effect was had on the morale of the enemy due to the campaign, doesn't it? My source is HERE, by the way...
I just want to be sure that no one is suggesting that the effort to bomb Germany into submission by the Allied air forces was a complete fabrication, and that the real effort was to draw out the fighters... even if it cost the Allies 169,000 men to do it. That seems like a lot to swallow, to me.
However, these precision bombing strategies went into effect beginning in May of 1942... the P-51 wasn't entered into the USAAF as a service-ready fighter until early in 1944 (late '43 for the Brits). That is more than an entire year of strategic bombing that cannot be blamed on a "bait and hook" strategy from the CIC of the US Eighth Air Force like Doolittle. More to the point, the bombing strategy was tabled until such time as an adequately capable fighter escort should become available at the end of '43... and the P-51 was that fighter. Sending the bombers over the cities unescorted was a controversial move, I'm sure... but it was always my understanding that the daylight bombers of the US command (B-17s mostly) were intended to fly higher than escorts could anyway... to avoid AA and enemy countermeasures (ground-level smoke screens are less effective if viewed from higher up, I guess).
My question is: How can the "percision strategic bombing" strategy have been a lie fabricated to cover the use of US and British bombers as bait so that Allied fighters could beat up German fighters... when prior to the start of '44, there were no fighters available that could escort even as far as the actual German frontier? Spitfires and P-38s didn't have the legs or the guns to go up against the Germans and win consistently... so there must have been an actual "plan" behind the plan, right?
Look, I'm really asking... I didn't see the show you guys did, and while I understand the argument that strategic bombing was NOT the success that it was proported to be at the time, the utter destruction of places like Hamburg, Dresden, Bochum, Mainz and Cologne due to such efforts cannot be completely ignored, can they? 305,000 dead, 7.5 million homeless, 91% of the survivors stating that the "bombing" was what told them the war was lost (beginning in early '44, by the way) and 75% of them blaming the Luftwaffe and the Nazis for not stopping it... surely these numbers show that SOME effect was had on the morale of the enemy due to the campaign, doesn't it? My source is HERE, by the way...
I just want to be sure that no one is suggesting that the effort to bomb Germany into submission by the Allied air forces was a complete fabrication, and that the real effort was to draw out the fighters... even if it cost the Allies 169,000 men to do it. That seems like a lot to swallow, to me.
Lies my history teacher taught me...
That should get someone's attention.
I'm not betting the croc dollar on this but I am SURE at some point in the Bund history I've posted the exact same sentiments Ryan just posted concerning the air war in WWII. But here's something more important.
Precision daytime bombing was the KEY to the US strategy. Knocking out the German industrial machine would shorten the war. Round the clock bombing, with the RAF bombing at night, would keep the Nazis from rebuilding their losses and create an Allied victory. We've ALL heard this, for almost 70 YEARS we've bought this load of CRAP. It is simply the longest lie continued about WWII.
Make no mistake, when Gen. James Doolittle takes command of the 8th Air Force in Jan 1944 he is not interested in bombing accuracy. He is not interested in demoralizing civilians, or destroying Nazi infrastructure. He only cares about getting the fighters off the ground so his fighters can kill them. Period. End of story.
The thousand bomber raid on Berlin in March of 1944 cost the 8th Air Force 69 bombers. The Germans lost 179 fighters. We lost almost six men to every Nazi pilot downed. And it is toted as a VICTORY. Were the targets hit? Yes, 179 of them, they're called ME-109s, FWs, and whatever else they could throw up into the sky. BOMBED targets didn't mean a damned thing.
This is the first show, the FIRST SHOW in almost 70 years that acknowledges that FACT. Did we see statistics like that in the WWII Museum in New Orleans? Will you see stats like that at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs? Or the Military Academy at West Point? If you're lucky enough to land in a history class that actually COVERS WWII, they'll STILL feed you that same line of BS. Precision daytime bombing shortened the war. Never mind that German production of fighters, munitions, small arms and tanks INCREASED in monthly totals from 1943 to 1945. That's what we teach. That's what we print.
One of my favorite war movies ever is 12 O'Clock High with Gregory Peck... And just about the ENTIRE premise of the movie is a lie. Precision daytime bombing was a deliberate, calculated use of American bombers and crew to flush the German fighters into the air, where they were vulnerable. Where the bombs fell was a PR campaign.
I know, I get pissy and for a basic selfish reason. We as a nation have done many unsavory things during war and during peace, and we as a nation have OFTEN lied about it, but me? Personally? How could I have NOT SEEN THIS, not put two and two together, for just about my entire adult life? I knew German war production increased from 43 to 45... But daytime precision bombing shortened the war? Grrrr.
I'm not betting the croc dollar on this but I am SURE at some point in the Bund history I've posted the exact same sentiments Ryan just posted concerning the air war in WWII. But here's something more important.
Precision daytime bombing was the KEY to the US strategy. Knocking out the German industrial machine would shorten the war. Round the clock bombing, with the RAF bombing at night, would keep the Nazis from rebuilding their losses and create an Allied victory. We've ALL heard this, for almost 70 YEARS we've bought this load of CRAP. It is simply the longest lie continued about WWII.
Make no mistake, when Gen. James Doolittle takes command of the 8th Air Force in Jan 1944 he is not interested in bombing accuracy. He is not interested in demoralizing civilians, or destroying Nazi infrastructure. He only cares about getting the fighters off the ground so his fighters can kill them. Period. End of story.
The thousand bomber raid on Berlin in March of 1944 cost the 8th Air Force 69 bombers. The Germans lost 179 fighters. We lost almost six men to every Nazi pilot downed. And it is toted as a VICTORY. Were the targets hit? Yes, 179 of them, they're called ME-109s, FWs, and whatever else they could throw up into the sky. BOMBED targets didn't mean a damned thing.
This is the first show, the FIRST SHOW in almost 70 years that acknowledges that FACT. Did we see statistics like that in the WWII Museum in New Orleans? Will you see stats like that at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs? Or the Military Academy at West Point? If you're lucky enough to land in a history class that actually COVERS WWII, they'll STILL feed you that same line of BS. Precision daytime bombing shortened the war. Never mind that German production of fighters, munitions, small arms and tanks INCREASED in monthly totals from 1943 to 1945. That's what we teach. That's what we print.
One of my favorite war movies ever is 12 O'Clock High with Gregory Peck... And just about the ENTIRE premise of the movie is a lie. Precision daytime bombing was a deliberate, calculated use of American bombers and crew to flush the German fighters into the air, where they were vulnerable. Where the bombs fell was a PR campaign.
I know, I get pissy and for a basic selfish reason. We as a nation have done many unsavory things during war and during peace, and we as a nation have OFTEN lied about it, but me? Personally? How could I have NOT SEEN THIS, not put two and two together, for just about my entire adult life? I knew German war production increased from 43 to 45... But daytime precision bombing shortened the war? Grrrr.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
The Air War
I just watched WWII in HD, The Air War. I know Jambo's a fan of the HD series as well, the footage is just unbelievable and they have A-list quality actors doing the narration. This episode chronicles the exploits of the 8th Air Force, in particular their missions to decimate the Luftwaffe in preparation of Dday.
Now with all the film making technology & precedent setting series like B.o.B out there, this is a WWII movie just begging to be made.
Just a few details...
One of the biggest concerns in the planning of Dday was the immense power of the Luftwaffe. The 8th knew that to give our landing boys any chance of success the German fighter herd had to be thinned, considerably. The skies quickly became the setting for a war of attrition, and we had no option but to use our one great advantage over the more experienced and battle gardened German pilots - numbers (the rate at which we were producing battle ready planes off the assembly line). Those bomber missions over Berlin in the spring of 44' were primarily to draw the German fighters out & give our boys in the newly developed P-51 Mustangs & various other Aces a chance to engage. Our fighters appeared to be mere escorts but their primary objective was to "slay the Huns." Meaning as a bomber squadron your secondary objective was delivering your pay load, the first was bait. And the initial Berlin bombing runs were near suicide. 70% of the Luftwaffe was stationed within combat range of the city, creating a 400 mile battle zone from the coast to the Reichstag's steps. And get this! Because the "escorts" primary mission was the destruction of the German air force they were not allowed to accompany the bombers over the city of Berlin. An estimated 740 anti aircraft batteries were stationed in and around the city, and the bombers went it alone into the "flak zone." To complete your tour as a bomber and get a ticket home one had to complete 25 such missions. 75% of the 8th's bomber squad during this time never saw number 25. But it worked. In March of 1944 Allied forces destroyed more German fighters in that single month then the previous 2 years combined.
And here's a stat that caught my attention - the 8th Air Force lost more men in WWII then did the US Marines, and their percentage of KIA amongst all US forces was topped only by submariners.
Like I said, an air war movie chronicling the months before the invasion with Dday as the back drop, THAT would be movie magic. Or even better, the air version of B.o.B. Get on it Hanks & Spielberg, chop, chop!
And by the way Stevie boy, if you need any additional writers, I know a few guys.
Now with all the film making technology & precedent setting series like B.o.B out there, this is a WWII movie just begging to be made.
Just a few details...
One of the biggest concerns in the planning of Dday was the immense power of the Luftwaffe. The 8th knew that to give our landing boys any chance of success the German fighter herd had to be thinned, considerably. The skies quickly became the setting for a war of attrition, and we had no option but to use our one great advantage over the more experienced and battle gardened German pilots - numbers (the rate at which we were producing battle ready planes off the assembly line). Those bomber missions over Berlin in the spring of 44' were primarily to draw the German fighters out & give our boys in the newly developed P-51 Mustangs & various other Aces a chance to engage. Our fighters appeared to be mere escorts but their primary objective was to "slay the Huns." Meaning as a bomber squadron your secondary objective was delivering your pay load, the first was bait. And the initial Berlin bombing runs were near suicide. 70% of the Luftwaffe was stationed within combat range of the city, creating a 400 mile battle zone from the coast to the Reichstag's steps. And get this! Because the "escorts" primary mission was the destruction of the German air force they were not allowed to accompany the bombers over the city of Berlin. An estimated 740 anti aircraft batteries were stationed in and around the city, and the bombers went it alone into the "flak zone." To complete your tour as a bomber and get a ticket home one had to complete 25 such missions. 75% of the 8th's bomber squad during this time never saw number 25. But it worked. In March of 1944 Allied forces destroyed more German fighters in that single month then the previous 2 years combined.
And here's a stat that caught my attention - the 8th Air Force lost more men in WWII then did the US Marines, and their percentage of KIA amongst all US forces was topped only by submariners.
Like I said, an air war movie chronicling the months before the invasion with Dday as the back drop, THAT would be movie magic. Or even better, the air version of B.o.B. Get on it Hanks & Spielberg, chop, chop!
And by the way Stevie boy, if you need any additional writers, I know a few guys.
Oh the irony...
A troop surge in Afghanistan, we're still in Iraq, & now 112 Tomahawks raining down on Lybia. Oh, & just for good measure, GITMO up & running at full capacity.
It would seem that you cant alway"talk" to the bad guys in this world. And if you listen to his arguments for hitting Qaddafi, they sound remarkably similar to a descrption of Saddam Heussein.
But fret not "hopey & changey" supporters, you can still depend on the president ... for your NCAA bracket list.
It would seem that you cant alway"talk" to the bad guys in this world. And if you listen to his arguments for hitting Qaddafi, they sound remarkably similar to a descrption of Saddam Heussein.
But fret not "hopey & changey" supporters, you can still depend on the president ... for your NCAA bracket list.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Remakes...
I'm torn... some work, and some simply don't.
Red Dawn was damn near iconic when I was growing up, especially in my group of friends. I'm no fan of changing what obviously worked... and so few have been worth seeing as remakes at all. Twelve Angry Men is one of the very few that worked, I think.
I've no real interest in seeing Red Dawn remade, but I'm curious about True Grit. Other westerns have been worth watching as remakes: 3:10 to Yuma is a good example. Most of the rest seem to be scifi or horror genres... Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Day of the Dead, Outland, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Crazies, Godzilla, The Day the Earth Stood Still... the list is staggering in length.
Others? The Longest Yard, The Miracle on Ice (Miracle), The Bad News Bears, Angels in the Outfield, Brian's Song... and all of these are sports movies. Only Miracle was better than the original (and I think one of the best sports films made... EVER).
I'm still hoping for a few remakes that I think could be even better than the originals... The Poseidon Adventure failed, but it could work, and so could movies like Jaws, The Magnificent Seven, Once Upon a Time in the West, All the President's Men, Toy Soldiers (quite topical in today's environment)... all good candidates for "classic" remake success.
Red Dawn was damn near iconic when I was growing up, especially in my group of friends. I'm no fan of changing what obviously worked... and so few have been worth seeing as remakes at all. Twelve Angry Men is one of the very few that worked, I think.
I've no real interest in seeing Red Dawn remade, but I'm curious about True Grit. Other westerns have been worth watching as remakes: 3:10 to Yuma is a good example. Most of the rest seem to be scifi or horror genres... Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Day of the Dead, Outland, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Crazies, Godzilla, The Day the Earth Stood Still... the list is staggering in length.
Others? The Longest Yard, The Miracle on Ice (Miracle), The Bad News Bears, Angels in the Outfield, Brian's Song... and all of these are sports movies. Only Miracle was better than the original (and I think one of the best sports films made... EVER).
I'm still hoping for a few remakes that I think could be even better than the originals... The Poseidon Adventure failed, but it could work, and so could movies like Jaws, The Magnificent Seven, Once Upon a Time in the West, All the President's Men, Toy Soldiers (quite topical in today's environment)... all good candidates for "classic" remake success.
Red Dawn 2
As sons of the waining Cold War years all, I think we can all attest to reveling in Red Dawn (I wonder if that was Charlie Sheen's last sober movie?).
Now look, I know the bad guys this time (since it can't really be the Russians), can't be Radical Islamists less the "Red" make no sense (although those regimes are all socialist). And more to the point, the idea of an Arab nation conducting an armed military invasion of the US is laughable. So, they used the Chinese. Ok, fine. But get this - MGM execs were concerned about the fall out of offending China, so they went in to the finished movie and digitally altered all the movie's Chinese flags and insignias (& foreign dialogue), replacing them with North Korea's! I guess they think all Asians look alike because they didn't reshoot the film with Korean actors.
The thing that strikes me is it's just as laughable to think North Korea could conduct a military on military mainland invasion of the US. In fact, I was barely buying China (at least they have 10 million well fed soldiers).
No, I'm afraid we must accept that the good old Cold War era film can not be brought back with the same level of "ummpf." But hey... give Putin a few years, I'm sure he's working on it.
Now look, I know the bad guys this time (since it can't really be the Russians), can't be Radical Islamists less the "Red" make no sense (although those regimes are all socialist). And more to the point, the idea of an Arab nation conducting an armed military invasion of the US is laughable. So, they used the Chinese. Ok, fine. But get this - MGM execs were concerned about the fall out of offending China, so they went in to the finished movie and digitally altered all the movie's Chinese flags and insignias (& foreign dialogue), replacing them with North Korea's! I guess they think all Asians look alike because they didn't reshoot the film with Korean actors.
The thing that strikes me is it's just as laughable to think North Korea could conduct a military on military mainland invasion of the US. In fact, I was barely buying China (at least they have 10 million well fed soldiers).
No, I'm afraid we must accept that the good old Cold War era film can not be brought back with the same level of "ummpf." But hey... give Putin a few years, I'm sure he's working on it.
Woah Nelly!
Mr. Titus desiring, nay advocating, a return to the gold standard... be still my beating heart. Ron Paul, Beck, Titus, all in sync? I'll just fly a pig next trip to NEPA, ha! (& yes, I caught the "gradual" part)
Kudos, on 2 fronts. The painstaking research you obviously engaged in, & the intellectual honesty to call your own position out. One quickly begins to calculate the additional value, in all areas of consumer activity, in moving from a declared value paper currency to one built on tangible value.
You acknowledged some of the benefits of unleashing the US dollar from gold, but in reality it simply alternated tethers... its worth mirrored in the frugality (or lack thereof) of the government which issued it. "Fiat" currency, 1 note is worth 1 dollar because "we say so" is the post 1971 legacy. And in an era of bailouts & trillion dollar deficits its clear to me that this government hasn't the ability to manage the worth of a currency that is unattached to any hard asset.
Nice work.
Kudos, on 2 fronts. The painstaking research you obviously engaged in, & the intellectual honesty to call your own position out. One quickly begins to calculate the additional value, in all areas of consumer activity, in moving from a declared value paper currency to one built on tangible value.
You acknowledged some of the benefits of unleashing the US dollar from gold, but in reality it simply alternated tethers... its worth mirrored in the frugality (or lack thereof) of the government which issued it. "Fiat" currency, 1 note is worth 1 dollar because "we say so" is the post 1971 legacy. And in an era of bailouts & trillion dollar deficits its clear to me that this government hasn't the ability to manage the worth of a currency that is unattached to any hard asset.
Nice work.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
This is painful to write...
I might have been wrong to blame the spectre of speculation pricing on the growing cost of oil.
You are going to have to bear with me on this one... this is something I've been looking into for nearly the whole week, and it isn't easy to condense the idea into a short post. So, what is driving crude oil prices so high, when the supply of oil is UP in the US by more than 3 million barrels per day since 2008?
The US Federal Government. Here's why:
In 1934, the Fed promised that one dollar would be worth 1/35th of the price of an ounce of gold, and that promise was reaffirmed in 1944's Bretton-Woods Agreement when all 44 Allied nations agreed to tie their national currencies to the US dollar and the US agreed to maintain a gold reserve adequate to keep the dollar at 1/35th of the market price of gold.
That system of national monetary policy ended in 1971 when Nixon took us off of the 1/35th gold price standard, and the US dollar became a fiat currency. Since that time, the US dollar has maintained its position as the "global currency" only because of the strength of the US economy in relation to its global partners. In short, we always spent more than everyone else... so the dollar had the greatest value.
Here's the amazing thing about all of this... if the Bretton Woods system were still in place, and the value of a dollar was tied to the price of gold (meaning the value of a dollar went up and down with the value of gold, and the global value of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce), the average cost for a barrel of oil right now would be $2.60 per barrel. Translate that into the national average for a gallon of gasoline, and the price is $0.10 per gallon. Yep... ten cents per gallon of gas.
That is amazing NOW because the $2.60 per barrel price tag for oil is almost worthless today. You can't even buy a Happy Meal at McDonald's for $2.60... literally. Nor can you buy a gallon of gasoline for that. That amazing disparity in prices from what would have been had Nixon not done what he did to today shows that the value of a dollar bill has fallen that much since only 1971... while other emerging economies like China and India are developing at a pace that makes the dollar's value seem even less likely to grow in the future (because they will be able to spend more than we do... routinely).
Much was gained by Nixon's actions, I cannot deny that. In 1987, the stock market crashed even harder than they did in 1929... but the US economy felt almost nothing, and the negative-growth indicators lasted only 4 months (almost not even a recession, really). That is the upside of such free-floating currency policy... but there IS a downside.
Foreign markets where we do much business (but always lopsided business, meaning we buy more from them than we sell to them) have often had currency exchange rates that vary wildly. Japan is one of our biggest trade partners, yet since 1971 the exchange rate on the Japanese Yen has flexed between Y200 per dollar to as low as Y75 per dollar. That makes trade profitability a damn tough thing to predict in the long term. Perhaps a better example is found in currencies that tie themselves directly to the value of a dollar since 1971... and the best example of that is the Mexican Peso. Since 1971, Mexico has had to revalue its peso four times nationally, meaning that country has had to devalue its currency and reissue it in new stock (on average) once every ten years since 1971 because the purchase power of the dollar has fallen faster than the Mexican economy could grow, and that WITH the US as their largest trade partner. Think about it for just a minute... most Americans look at the peso as nearly worthless... but it has ALWAYS been tied directly to the value of a US dollar (at least for the last 50 years), so if the value of a peso is almost worthless... isn't that a reflection on the value of a dollar?
Look, I'm not blaming the fiscal woes of Mexico on Federal currency policies, nor am I suggesting that local Mexican political corruption didn't contribute to those peso crashes. I am simply saying that I think the two are connected, and that the greater decline in the value of the dollar is a major contributor to the cost of oil.
The act of removing the US from the Bretton Woods agreement is now referred to as the "Nixon Shock", and it did shock the global economy... but putting us back would shock it even more, especially here at home. We don't have enough gold in reserve right now to value the amount of US dollars already in circulation at even this morning's dollar value... only seventy four cents on every dollar is covered by US Federal Reserve deposits of gold, and to force a 1 to 1 valuation would send a weak economy into another free-fall.
But perhaps it is time to begin the process gradually. Currency by fiat is no longer proving itself viable in a world were emerging economies like those in India, China and Russia are increasingly competing with US markets, and are increasingly out-pacing the US.
Ending speculation pricing would (I still ardently maintain) take away much of the volatility of the oil market, and keep the price at a more steady, long-term level... but it won't take away the trend upwards in price. That will need to be addressed by guarantying the value of the currency used to buy the oil, and the only way to do that is to ensure the continued strength of the dollar in relation to other global currencies.
You are going to have to bear with me on this one... this is something I've been looking into for nearly the whole week, and it isn't easy to condense the idea into a short post. So, what is driving crude oil prices so high, when the supply of oil is UP in the US by more than 3 million barrels per day since 2008?
The US Federal Government. Here's why:
In 1934, the Fed promised that one dollar would be worth 1/35th of the price of an ounce of gold, and that promise was reaffirmed in 1944's Bretton-Woods Agreement when all 44 Allied nations agreed to tie their national currencies to the US dollar and the US agreed to maintain a gold reserve adequate to keep the dollar at 1/35th of the market price of gold.
That system of national monetary policy ended in 1971 when Nixon took us off of the 1/35th gold price standard, and the US dollar became a fiat currency. Since that time, the US dollar has maintained its position as the "global currency" only because of the strength of the US economy in relation to its global partners. In short, we always spent more than everyone else... so the dollar had the greatest value.
Here's the amazing thing about all of this... if the Bretton Woods system were still in place, and the value of a dollar was tied to the price of gold (meaning the value of a dollar went up and down with the value of gold, and the global value of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce), the average cost for a barrel of oil right now would be $2.60 per barrel. Translate that into the national average for a gallon of gasoline, and the price is $0.10 per gallon. Yep... ten cents per gallon of gas.
That is amazing NOW because the $2.60 per barrel price tag for oil is almost worthless today. You can't even buy a Happy Meal at McDonald's for $2.60... literally. Nor can you buy a gallon of gasoline for that. That amazing disparity in prices from what would have been had Nixon not done what he did to today shows that the value of a dollar bill has fallen that much since only 1971... while other emerging economies like China and India are developing at a pace that makes the dollar's value seem even less likely to grow in the future (because they will be able to spend more than we do... routinely).
Much was gained by Nixon's actions, I cannot deny that. In 1987, the stock market crashed even harder than they did in 1929... but the US economy felt almost nothing, and the negative-growth indicators lasted only 4 months (almost not even a recession, really). That is the upside of such free-floating currency policy... but there IS a downside.
Foreign markets where we do much business (but always lopsided business, meaning we buy more from them than we sell to them) have often had currency exchange rates that vary wildly. Japan is one of our biggest trade partners, yet since 1971 the exchange rate on the Japanese Yen has flexed between Y200 per dollar to as low as Y75 per dollar. That makes trade profitability a damn tough thing to predict in the long term. Perhaps a better example is found in currencies that tie themselves directly to the value of a dollar since 1971... and the best example of that is the Mexican Peso. Since 1971, Mexico has had to revalue its peso four times nationally, meaning that country has had to devalue its currency and reissue it in new stock (on average) once every ten years since 1971 because the purchase power of the dollar has fallen faster than the Mexican economy could grow, and that WITH the US as their largest trade partner. Think about it for just a minute... most Americans look at the peso as nearly worthless... but it has ALWAYS been tied directly to the value of a US dollar (at least for the last 50 years), so if the value of a peso is almost worthless... isn't that a reflection on the value of a dollar?
Look, I'm not blaming the fiscal woes of Mexico on Federal currency policies, nor am I suggesting that local Mexican political corruption didn't contribute to those peso crashes. I am simply saying that I think the two are connected, and that the greater decline in the value of the dollar is a major contributor to the cost of oil.
The act of removing the US from the Bretton Woods agreement is now referred to as the "Nixon Shock", and it did shock the global economy... but putting us back would shock it even more, especially here at home. We don't have enough gold in reserve right now to value the amount of US dollars already in circulation at even this morning's dollar value... only seventy four cents on every dollar is covered by US Federal Reserve deposits of gold, and to force a 1 to 1 valuation would send a weak economy into another free-fall.
But perhaps it is time to begin the process gradually. Currency by fiat is no longer proving itself viable in a world were emerging economies like those in India, China and Russia are increasingly competing with US markets, and are increasingly out-pacing the US.
Ending speculation pricing would (I still ardently maintain) take away much of the volatility of the oil market, and keep the price at a more steady, long-term level... but it won't take away the trend upwards in price. That will need to be addressed by guarantying the value of the currency used to buy the oil, and the only way to do that is to ensure the continued strength of the dollar in relation to other global currencies.
Monday, March 14, 2011
On the "very ugly"...
A good post... well done.
I just wanted to add something I have thought about a lot since I first heard the news about the Fogel massacre (and it was nothing less than a massacre): What was gained?
Murderous intent aside, let's think about this for a moment...
Itamar is the "settlement" where the tragedy took place, and it is a hot-bed of activism and pro-settlement activity. This isn't suggesting that any of that is WRONG, only that it is often associated with acts by Israelis against Palestinians that raise questions even in Israel. They adamantly oppose current Israeli tendencies towards disbanding the settlements as part of a land-swap agreement, and insist that where ever they build, Israel rules.
Now, attacking a place like Itamar might seem like exactly the sort of thing militant Palestinians might want to do... but killing two parents and their children isn't exactly going to motivate the other 1,300 settlers to want to "move" out of the territory, even in the minds of someone twisted enough to commit these murders.
I'm thinking that killing these people, in the manner and place that they did, wasn't to "kill the Zionists" as so many think it was. No, I think it was to get the Israelis mad enough to do something in retaliation against the Palestinians. Imagine the fallout that would follow a riot in the streets of Itamar in which a Palestinian day worker was beaten or (God forbid) killed by the rioters... even ONE such action by "armed and determined" settlers would be more than enough to fire the rage and frustration of every radical Muslim from the Southeast Asian coasts to Toronto, Canada, and it would make the last intifada look like a picnic in the park.
THAT is what the radicals within the PA, the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and much of the Sh'ia leadership in Iraq want to happen... Israeli retaliation against "Palestinian freedom fighters" (their words, not mine).
That is the ONLY rational reason for seeing what happened happen as it did...
I just wanted to add something I have thought about a lot since I first heard the news about the Fogel massacre (and it was nothing less than a massacre): What was gained?
Murderous intent aside, let's think about this for a moment...
Itamar is the "settlement" where the tragedy took place, and it is a hot-bed of activism and pro-settlement activity. This isn't suggesting that any of that is WRONG, only that it is often associated with acts by Israelis against Palestinians that raise questions even in Israel. They adamantly oppose current Israeli tendencies towards disbanding the settlements as part of a land-swap agreement, and insist that where ever they build, Israel rules.
Now, attacking a place like Itamar might seem like exactly the sort of thing militant Palestinians might want to do... but killing two parents and their children isn't exactly going to motivate the other 1,300 settlers to want to "move" out of the territory, even in the minds of someone twisted enough to commit these murders.
I'm thinking that killing these people, in the manner and place that they did, wasn't to "kill the Zionists" as so many think it was. No, I think it was to get the Israelis mad enough to do something in retaliation against the Palestinians. Imagine the fallout that would follow a riot in the streets of Itamar in which a Palestinian day worker was beaten or (God forbid) killed by the rioters... even ONE such action by "armed and determined" settlers would be more than enough to fire the rage and frustration of every radical Muslim from the Southeast Asian coasts to Toronto, Canada, and it would make the last intifada look like a picnic in the park.
THAT is what the radicals within the PA, the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and much of the Sh'ia leadership in Iraq want to happen... Israeli retaliation against "Palestinian freedom fighters" (their words, not mine).
That is the ONLY rational reason for seeing what happened happen as it did...
The not so good, the bad, and the very ugly...
I'm sure Clint Eastwood wouldn't mind.
The not so good (but damned interesting)...
"Richter Science."
I make a point of noting I'm referring to the "science" because certainly the death toll in Japan personifies morbid. That being said, it's the science of this tragedy that I found fascinating and only serves to underscore the impact of what occurred.
Did you know this? In a story found HERE, scientists have determined that the quake was so powerful that it actually shortened the length of a day on planet earth.
From the story: "A new analysis of the 8.9-9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan has found that the intense temblor has accelerated Earth's spin, shortening the length of the 24-hour day by 1.8 microseconds, according to geophysicist Richard Gross at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif."
In addition, data suggests the earthquake moved Japan's main island about 8 feet (according to Kenneth Hudnut of the U.S. Geological Survey). The earthquake also shifted Earth's figure axis by about 6 1/2 inches.
That's just unbelievable. At first listen I thought perhaps I was being informed by George Norry. I mean this is the stiff of science fiction ... or the New Testament.
And it underscores the awesome, raw, incomprehensible power of nature. Making the idea that humans could cause or prevent things such as blizzards, heat waves, dust bowls, hurricanes, tsunamis, or even plain old weather, all the more ridiculous.
****
The bad...
While reading your PA school budget post (& kudos to Mick for such a dedicated work ethic to his civic duties), something occurred to me. As is the case with all bureaucracies (especially of the government variety), for every problem they attempt to solve they create 3 more. It's what I call the "Gremlins Rule." Folks like Micheal Moore et al are running around claiming that America, and these various states, aren't broke at all. That the wealth is simply in the wrong hands. Moore even went so far as to suggest seizing the assets of the 399 most wealthy Americans (don't ask me how he arrived at that number) in order to pay for needed social programs (the man's gone from a half wit socialist to a hard core Stalinist). But for those of us attached to reality we know that raising taxes is not the solution, and given the damage to the greater economy it would cause, such a move would undoubtedly serve to worsen the budget crisis of states like PA and WI, not fix it. If you combine this with the idea that NCLB has become "burdensome", and that in a tax payer funded school system parents are going to be expected to supplement things like band, you quickly realize that in a pretzel logic way, Moore almost got it right - the problem isn't money. It's who spends the money. Namely, the bureaucracy. Did you know that New York, in a fiscal crisis itself, spends $14k annually per student?
Let me bring this into focus: what would eliminate 99.9% of issues such as budget shortfalls, class room sizes, extracurricular activities, etc, etc?
How about sending a voucher check for what the estimated per student amount is for the entire state, to each parent or legal guardian, and allow that parent to pick and choose where their child attends school within the Commonwealth of PA? This is what the uber wealthy do already. They shop around and find the most bang for their educational buck. They don't adhere to districting, they simply pick the best school for the best tuition rate, and send their child. Why shouldn't the average tax payer be afforded the same ability? I'd much rather have the money in the hands of discerning, shopping savvy mothers and fathers then (all due respect to your friend and my acquaintance), putting the burden on a single man siiting atop a fiscal beuracracy. The best schools would thrive and be flush with cash. The worst would shrivel and cease to exist. These arbitrary lines of districting, locking children into failing schools (often minorities to boot), is madness.
This works for the wealthy, for discerning college students. Hell, this sort of free market based model works in every aspect of our society. It's only when government steps in to subsidize failure do we get a Fannie Mae, or crumbling elementary school. I'd prefer to send my sons to private school. Now, I can't afford the annual $7k per child (to randomly pick a number) for Catholic school, but if I were getting the tax dollars back in a form of a voucher and it was say $4,500 here in Nevada, then I'd be able to close the gap. More and more quality schools would open up to service the vouchers as those unable to compete closed.
And just a personal anecdote ... when I was in 3rd grade at Sacred Heart, my teacher noticed I was reading at an advanced level. She called a nun in. They had a 5 minute discussion. And every day when we took to the reading and English hour the nun appeared and walked me down to the 4th grade class. I returned after. No forms to fill out. No proficiency tests, meetings with the principal, petitioning the education board. Just a 5 minute discussion. And that's the difference, in my opinion, between the current federal/state Ed Departments and what a voucher system would do. One's a 5 minute discussion to decide and apply what works ... and the other is filling out multi colored forms, in triplicate.
****
The very ugly...
What was it? 27 injured? And 4 of those were Israeli commandos. The "Flotilla Raid" captured headlines and the world's attention for at least a week. So can someone tell me why THIS STORY isn't getting more coverage? Or any for that matter. . .
On Friday night March 11th, 2011 the Fogel Family, living in the Community of Itimar in Samaria, was fast asleep. Between the hours of 10:30pm and 11pm, local time, 2 Palestinians broke a window and entered the Fogel's home. The Palestinians soon appeared in the parent's bedroom where they stabbed the 36 year old father Udi Fogel, 34 year old mother Ruth, and their 3 month old baby girl Hadas, to death, in their beds. They then turn, proceed down the hall and enter the children's bedroom where two more of the Fogel's sons were sleeping. They quickly drew their blades and proceeded to murder Yoav, 11 years, and Elad, 4 years. But the horror isn't over. At 12:30a.m., with the heinous murderers just gone, 12 year old daughter Tamar returns home from a youth event to discover the bodies of her parents and 3 siblings. But there are 6 children in the Fogel family. She finds her 2 surviving siblings and calls for help.
A moving 3 minute 30 second video documenting the family and their murder can be found HERE.
Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency told Iranians that the attackers “managed to kill all the five Zionists who were in the house…. The Palestinian combatant has returned home safely after conducting his mission successfully... The operation was a natural response to the crimes of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people.”
Hamas stated, “According to the international law, Palestinian resistance factions have the full right to resist any kind of occupation on the land of Palestine, as well as the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people in West Bank and Gaza grant the Palestinian resistance factions to use all tools and means of resistance against the Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers.”
A statement by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad simply stated, "We are against violence and condemn it regardless of the circumstances, identity of the victims or the goals.” But he did not state that the PA would help search for the perpetrators whom are believed to be held up in the Palestinian village of Awarta.
These are Israel's "peace partners."
The not so good (but damned interesting)...
"Richter Science."
I make a point of noting I'm referring to the "science" because certainly the death toll in Japan personifies morbid. That being said, it's the science of this tragedy that I found fascinating and only serves to underscore the impact of what occurred.
Did you know this? In a story found HERE, scientists have determined that the quake was so powerful that it actually shortened the length of a day on planet earth.
From the story: "A new analysis of the 8.9-9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan has found that the intense temblor has accelerated Earth's spin, shortening the length of the 24-hour day by 1.8 microseconds, according to geophysicist Richard Gross at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif."
In addition, data suggests the earthquake moved Japan's main island about 8 feet (according to Kenneth Hudnut of the U.S. Geological Survey). The earthquake also shifted Earth's figure axis by about 6 1/2 inches.
That's just unbelievable. At first listen I thought perhaps I was being informed by George Norry. I mean this is the stiff of science fiction ... or the New Testament.
And it underscores the awesome, raw, incomprehensible power of nature. Making the idea that humans could cause or prevent things such as blizzards, heat waves, dust bowls, hurricanes, tsunamis, or even plain old weather, all the more ridiculous.
****
The bad...
While reading your PA school budget post (& kudos to Mick for such a dedicated work ethic to his civic duties), something occurred to me. As is the case with all bureaucracies (especially of the government variety), for every problem they attempt to solve they create 3 more. It's what I call the "Gremlins Rule." Folks like Micheal Moore et al are running around claiming that America, and these various states, aren't broke at all. That the wealth is simply in the wrong hands. Moore even went so far as to suggest seizing the assets of the 399 most wealthy Americans (don't ask me how he arrived at that number) in order to pay for needed social programs (the man's gone from a half wit socialist to a hard core Stalinist). But for those of us attached to reality we know that raising taxes is not the solution, and given the damage to the greater economy it would cause, such a move would undoubtedly serve to worsen the budget crisis of states like PA and WI, not fix it. If you combine this with the idea that NCLB has become "burdensome", and that in a tax payer funded school system parents are going to be expected to supplement things like band, you quickly realize that in a pretzel logic way, Moore almost got it right - the problem isn't money. It's who spends the money. Namely, the bureaucracy. Did you know that New York, in a fiscal crisis itself, spends $14k annually per student?
Let me bring this into focus: what would eliminate 99.9% of issues such as budget shortfalls, class room sizes, extracurricular activities, etc, etc?
How about sending a voucher check for what the estimated per student amount is for the entire state, to each parent or legal guardian, and allow that parent to pick and choose where their child attends school within the Commonwealth of PA? This is what the uber wealthy do already. They shop around and find the most bang for their educational buck. They don't adhere to districting, they simply pick the best school for the best tuition rate, and send their child. Why shouldn't the average tax payer be afforded the same ability? I'd much rather have the money in the hands of discerning, shopping savvy mothers and fathers then (all due respect to your friend and my acquaintance), putting the burden on a single man siiting atop a fiscal beuracracy. The best schools would thrive and be flush with cash. The worst would shrivel and cease to exist. These arbitrary lines of districting, locking children into failing schools (often minorities to boot), is madness.
This works for the wealthy, for discerning college students. Hell, this sort of free market based model works in every aspect of our society. It's only when government steps in to subsidize failure do we get a Fannie Mae, or crumbling elementary school. I'd prefer to send my sons to private school. Now, I can't afford the annual $7k per child (to randomly pick a number) for Catholic school, but if I were getting the tax dollars back in a form of a voucher and it was say $4,500 here in Nevada, then I'd be able to close the gap. More and more quality schools would open up to service the vouchers as those unable to compete closed.
And just a personal anecdote ... when I was in 3rd grade at Sacred Heart, my teacher noticed I was reading at an advanced level. She called a nun in. They had a 5 minute discussion. And every day when we took to the reading and English hour the nun appeared and walked me down to the 4th grade class. I returned after. No forms to fill out. No proficiency tests, meetings with the principal, petitioning the education board. Just a 5 minute discussion. And that's the difference, in my opinion, between the current federal/state Ed Departments and what a voucher system would do. One's a 5 minute discussion to decide and apply what works ... and the other is filling out multi colored forms, in triplicate.
****
The very ugly...
What was it? 27 injured? And 4 of those were Israeli commandos. The "Flotilla Raid" captured headlines and the world's attention for at least a week. So can someone tell me why THIS STORY isn't getting more coverage? Or any for that matter. . .
On Friday night March 11th, 2011 the Fogel Family, living in the Community of Itimar in Samaria, was fast asleep. Between the hours of 10:30pm and 11pm, local time, 2 Palestinians broke a window and entered the Fogel's home. The Palestinians soon appeared in the parent's bedroom where they stabbed the 36 year old father Udi Fogel, 34 year old mother Ruth, and their 3 month old baby girl Hadas, to death, in their beds. They then turn, proceed down the hall and enter the children's bedroom where two more of the Fogel's sons were sleeping. They quickly drew their blades and proceeded to murder Yoav, 11 years, and Elad, 4 years. But the horror isn't over. At 12:30a.m., with the heinous murderers just gone, 12 year old daughter Tamar returns home from a youth event to discover the bodies of her parents and 3 siblings. But there are 6 children in the Fogel family. She finds her 2 surviving siblings and calls for help.
A moving 3 minute 30 second video documenting the family and their murder can be found HERE.
Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency told Iranians that the attackers “managed to kill all the five Zionists who were in the house…. The Palestinian combatant has returned home safely after conducting his mission successfully... The operation was a natural response to the crimes of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people.”
Hamas stated, “According to the international law, Palestinian resistance factions have the full right to resist any kind of occupation on the land of Palestine, as well as the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people in West Bank and Gaza grant the Palestinian resistance factions to use all tools and means of resistance against the Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers.”
A statement by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad simply stated, "We are against violence and condemn it regardless of the circumstances, identity of the victims or the goals.” But he did not state that the PA would help search for the perpetrators whom are believed to be held up in the Palestinian village of Awarta.
These are Israel's "peace partners."
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What the problem really is...
100,000 people from all across the country met in Madison for a protest of the State's latest legislative action that took away the collective bargaining rights of just over 174,000 State and municiple employees. Only the police, fire department and State troopers were exempted.
Costs to these workers stem from the State insisting on the employee paying at least 50% of their retirement benefit (I pay 100% of mine), at least 12.6% of their health insurance premium (I pay 26% of mine), and at least 25% of their transportation benefit (I get none). According to the State of Wisconsin, this would average out to an increased deduction from their pay of just over $240 per month. To many people, that is a lot of money, I don't doubt that at all... I wish I had an additional $240 per month, I can tell you. I really just don't think that is why the unions are so "up in arms" and keep referring to what is happening as an "attack" by the GOP.
No, what the problem really is is that the legislation also says that employers are no longer "required" by law to withhold dues for union membership... a practice that cost the average employer $75 per employee per month. That is $900 a year per union employee in cost to the employer that is not recovered in any way shape or form from the union or the employees... pure expense for the employer. Now, if unions want their dues, they will have to find a way to collect it themselves and will have to pay for it themselves... and that has made them very very unhappy.
Furthermore, all unions in the State of Wisconsin will have to have open ballot decisions each and every year where each and every employee can decide if they want to stay in the union or not. No more "closed shops" in Wisconsin... no more secret ballots, and no more one time card signings. You want to belong to a union at your place of employment, you'll have to say so loudly and proudly each and every year via ballot that the employer can make public... period.
This doesn't take ANY power or rights from the worker at all, in my opinion. It gives them back, in point of fact. Want to join your voice to hundreds of others when it comes time to bargain new payroll contracts with the local trucking company? That's absolutely fine... but be ready to do it each year, and be ready for your friends and neighbors to also do so and perhaps change their mind. Want a $600 per year RAISE? Then don't expect or demand your employer to pay to have your union dues withheld and transfered to your union accounts, and watch the employers bottom line go down by that much each year. He saves $300 per year, and could (possibly, with the right incentives from the workers) pass on the additional $600 per year to YOU. And the only one that actually SUFFERS in this scenario is the union that is currently spending as much as $100,000 (of YOUR union dues, I might add) per WEEK to have all these rabble-rousers waving posters and shouting loudly at the cameras outside the Wisconsin State House.
I agree with the unions 100% when the say they are under "attack" by Walker and the WI GOP... passage and implementation of this law will cost these unions millions of dollars each year. It will give back many rights that I am afraid many Wisconsin workers have forgotten they once held.
Costs to these workers stem from the State insisting on the employee paying at least 50% of their retirement benefit (I pay 100% of mine), at least 12.6% of their health insurance premium (I pay 26% of mine), and at least 25% of their transportation benefit (I get none). According to the State of Wisconsin, this would average out to an increased deduction from their pay of just over $240 per month. To many people, that is a lot of money, I don't doubt that at all... I wish I had an additional $240 per month, I can tell you. I really just don't think that is why the unions are so "up in arms" and keep referring to what is happening as an "attack" by the GOP.
No, what the problem really is is that the legislation also says that employers are no longer "required" by law to withhold dues for union membership... a practice that cost the average employer $75 per employee per month. That is $900 a year per union employee in cost to the employer that is not recovered in any way shape or form from the union or the employees... pure expense for the employer. Now, if unions want their dues, they will have to find a way to collect it themselves and will have to pay for it themselves... and that has made them very very unhappy.
Furthermore, all unions in the State of Wisconsin will have to have open ballot decisions each and every year where each and every employee can decide if they want to stay in the union or not. No more "closed shops" in Wisconsin... no more secret ballots, and no more one time card signings. You want to belong to a union at your place of employment, you'll have to say so loudly and proudly each and every year via ballot that the employer can make public... period.
This doesn't take ANY power or rights from the worker at all, in my opinion. It gives them back, in point of fact. Want to join your voice to hundreds of others when it comes time to bargain new payroll contracts with the local trucking company? That's absolutely fine... but be ready to do it each year, and be ready for your friends and neighbors to also do so and perhaps change their mind. Want a $600 per year RAISE? Then don't expect or demand your employer to pay to have your union dues withheld and transfered to your union accounts, and watch the employers bottom line go down by that much each year. He saves $300 per year, and could (possibly, with the right incentives from the workers) pass on the additional $600 per year to YOU. And the only one that actually SUFFERS in this scenario is the union that is currently spending as much as $100,000 (of YOUR union dues, I might add) per WEEK to have all these rabble-rousers waving posters and shouting loudly at the cameras outside the Wisconsin State House.
I agree with the unions 100% when the say they are under "attack" by Walker and the WI GOP... passage and implementation of this law will cost these unions millions of dollars each year. It will give back many rights that I am afraid many Wisconsin workers have forgotten they once held.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
PA education budgets...
Mick the Mic, my friend and Bund Buddy, is on the local school board, and he is the chairman of the finance committee for the board. He is talking to Liz right now about the latest school board budget that came down from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania... and it is really, really low.
It would seem that Mick is now facing the prospect of massive program cuts, or increasing cost to the students and parents. What is very obvious, though, is that if this is going to be the "future norm" for the districts around here (upwards of $1 million less than previous budgets), is that cost-creating programs like No Child Left Behind will rapidly become a thing of the past here in PA.
For example, if the board decides to return the district to half-day kindergarten classes (its been full day for the last five years), then it is probably unreasonable to expect future 2nd Graders to take the same NCLB-based tests as those that were taking full day classes. If the board decides to offer early retirement to as many as 25 teachers, then almost none of those teachers will be replaced, meaning larger classes and less time per student to ensure NCLB focus on test results.
Knowing the community I live in, I can assure anyone wondering that programs like the music department, football, softball, basketball, robotics, and drama will have real support from the parents and community in general... even if it means NCLB policies are sacrificed or ignored completely. I know one possible plan is to ask parents to contribute a once-a-year fee for students that are in each of these programs, thus offsetting the cost to the district (even though it is the equivalent of another school tax). Programs will probably have to raise more money through magazine/candy/fruit sales... as much as I (as a parent) detest these things.
This is going to be a painful process for the district, I'm sure, but I am also very confident that the majority of parents and taxpayers understand the value these kids are getting at this school. It is a good district, and I really think we can recognize what works and what doesn't... even though some will simply expect others to pay for their kid's particpation.
It would seem that Mick is now facing the prospect of massive program cuts, or increasing cost to the students and parents. What is very obvious, though, is that if this is going to be the "future norm" for the districts around here (upwards of $1 million less than previous budgets), is that cost-creating programs like No Child Left Behind will rapidly become a thing of the past here in PA.
For example, if the board decides to return the district to half-day kindergarten classes (its been full day for the last five years), then it is probably unreasonable to expect future 2nd Graders to take the same NCLB-based tests as those that were taking full day classes. If the board decides to offer early retirement to as many as 25 teachers, then almost none of those teachers will be replaced, meaning larger classes and less time per student to ensure NCLB focus on test results.
Knowing the community I live in, I can assure anyone wondering that programs like the music department, football, softball, basketball, robotics, and drama will have real support from the parents and community in general... even if it means NCLB policies are sacrificed or ignored completely. I know one possible plan is to ask parents to contribute a once-a-year fee for students that are in each of these programs, thus offsetting the cost to the district (even though it is the equivalent of another school tax). Programs will probably have to raise more money through magazine/candy/fruit sales... as much as I (as a parent) detest these things.
This is going to be a painful process for the district, I'm sure, but I am also very confident that the majority of parents and taxpayers understand the value these kids are getting at this school. It is a good district, and I really think we can recognize what works and what doesn't... even though some will simply expect others to pay for their kid's particpation.
Adding hype to tragedy...
Look, I'm not a nuclear engineer... I'm a casino hack with a news addiction... but even I understand that a "light-water" nuclear power plant like the one all over the news in Japan can't explode into a huge mushroom cloud and spread nuclear material across the planet.
The plant is much the same as Three Mile Island here in PA, and like that now-storied facility, even if the ability of the engineers to cool the core is hampered or stopped completely, the reactor itself is contained in a building that will not allow material to escape. Once the temperature in the reactor goes UP, the reaction STOPS... thus, the need for increasing coolant is negated.
Continued reference to the Chernobyl is both inaccurate and unhelpful... mostly because the Chernobyl plant was built without a containment unit, meaning that when the reactor over-heated and melted down, it was immediately exposed to the open air and massive amounts of material were allowed to escape into the atmosphere. In the months following the Chernobyl disaster, the Russians were forced to pour millions of tons of concrete over the reactor in an attempt to build a containment unit after the fact. This is not something that can happen in Japan... the reactor is already contained in a several-meter-thick concrete shell that can be sealed, allowing only pressure release and coolant application to get the temperatures to functional levels.
Now, I'm not saying that this sort of disaster isn't going to destroy the reactor and possibly the plant itself... that is entirely possible, as we saw at Three Mile Island... but we are not looking at a disaster anywhere near as devastating or impacting as Chernobyl.
Is it really necessary to add hype to a tragedy of this magnitude?
The plant is much the same as Three Mile Island here in PA, and like that now-storied facility, even if the ability of the engineers to cool the core is hampered or stopped completely, the reactor itself is contained in a building that will not allow material to escape. Once the temperature in the reactor goes UP, the reaction STOPS... thus, the need for increasing coolant is negated.
Continued reference to the Chernobyl is both inaccurate and unhelpful... mostly because the Chernobyl plant was built without a containment unit, meaning that when the reactor over-heated and melted down, it was immediately exposed to the open air and massive amounts of material were allowed to escape into the atmosphere. In the months following the Chernobyl disaster, the Russians were forced to pour millions of tons of concrete over the reactor in an attempt to build a containment unit after the fact. This is not something that can happen in Japan... the reactor is already contained in a several-meter-thick concrete shell that can be sealed, allowing only pressure release and coolant application to get the temperatures to functional levels.
Now, I'm not saying that this sort of disaster isn't going to destroy the reactor and possibly the plant itself... that is entirely possible, as we saw at Three Mile Island... but we are not looking at a disaster anywhere near as devastating or impacting as Chernobyl.
Is it really necessary to add hype to a tragedy of this magnitude?
Finally...
Someone else is finally asking the same questions I am concerning crude oil prices... in this short but well-written little piece.
While I agree that having Obama approve the more than 40 drill permit requests that are being held up and that would, if approved, allow the US to increase domestic oil production by more than 30% (and increase the amount of oil we make ourselves by MORE than what we get from Iran and Iraq combined)... what the author missed was the increasingly obvious need to end speculation pricing on crude oil.
The largest winners in the speculation pricing game right now are the companies that make the gasoline and sell it at the pumps... with no "cost" to them (at least not in production and refining), they find revenues increased already this year (and it isn't even April yet) by 22% over the last quarter of last year. How can consumption of gasoline and oil be DOWN while revenues go UP... without the "spectre" of gouging coming into the equation?
Ryan has no patience for my rants about "too large a profit margin"... and perhaps justifiably so... but what is driving prices right now is NOT free market economics. It is manipulation of financial subtleties to garner larger profits at consumer expense, with no measurable market-driven actions to account for the increase.
Even if 99.99% of ALL government regulation of economic practices could be proven to hurt economic growth in this country, I am convinced that THIS lack of regulation is costing the struggling US economy more than we can measure by allowing fear and speculation to determine what tomorrow's prices will or won't be, rather than what is available for consumption versus what is demanded by consumers.
While I agree that having Obama approve the more than 40 drill permit requests that are being held up and that would, if approved, allow the US to increase domestic oil production by more than 30% (and increase the amount of oil we make ourselves by MORE than what we get from Iran and Iraq combined)... what the author missed was the increasingly obvious need to end speculation pricing on crude oil.
The largest winners in the speculation pricing game right now are the companies that make the gasoline and sell it at the pumps... with no "cost" to them (at least not in production and refining), they find revenues increased already this year (and it isn't even April yet) by 22% over the last quarter of last year. How can consumption of gasoline and oil be DOWN while revenues go UP... without the "spectre" of gouging coming into the equation?
Ryan has no patience for my rants about "too large a profit margin"... and perhaps justifiably so... but what is driving prices right now is NOT free market economics. It is manipulation of financial subtleties to garner larger profits at consumer expense, with no measurable market-driven actions to account for the increase.
Even if 99.99% of ALL government regulation of economic practices could be proven to hurt economic growth in this country, I am convinced that THIS lack of regulation is costing the struggling US economy more than we can measure by allowing fear and speculation to determine what tomorrow's prices will or won't be, rather than what is available for consumption versus what is demanded by consumers.
Friday, March 11, 2011
A perk to regulation?
In 1923 near the town of Kanto, Japan suffered its second biggest earthquake. It measured 8.3 and killed more than 145,000 people (the equivalent of the entire population of the MS Gulf Coast). In 1996, a 7.2 hit Kobe and killed 6,500 people, mostly due to the collapse of buildings that pre-dated earthquake building codes (buildings built more than 35 years prior to the event).
With this quake now estimated at 8.9, the number of collapsed buildings is surprisingly small, and while the death toll isn't figured yet... I'm sure most of it will come from the flood waters, and as tragic as any single death due to this event is, imagine how much worse it could have been.
After writing what I did about my disdain for extraneous government regulations, I do think it appropriate to mention that the Federal government here in the US DOES have a responsibility to have in place both the plans and the means to maintain or replace infrastructure in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster... just as they would if a catastrophic man-made disaster were to occur. In Japan, we see the fruits of billions of yen in spending on things like a tsunami early warning systems, seismic study programs that can warn of possible areas of aftershock, adequate routes of evacuation for the millions that live near coastal flooding areas (like what was needed in New Orleans in 2005, but didn't happen). Requirements from the government that new construction meet a standard that increases the likelihood of structural survivability in a big quake is another... increased cost at construction years ago is MORE than off-set by the savings in life, treasure and infrastructure now, and I think anyone living in Tokyo or anywhere north of it would agree 100%.
With this quake now estimated at 8.9, the number of collapsed buildings is surprisingly small, and while the death toll isn't figured yet... I'm sure most of it will come from the flood waters, and as tragic as any single death due to this event is, imagine how much worse it could have been.
After writing what I did about my disdain for extraneous government regulations, I do think it appropriate to mention that the Federal government here in the US DOES have a responsibility to have in place both the plans and the means to maintain or replace infrastructure in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster... just as they would if a catastrophic man-made disaster were to occur. In Japan, we see the fruits of billions of yen in spending on things like a tsunami early warning systems, seismic study programs that can warn of possible areas of aftershock, adequate routes of evacuation for the millions that live near coastal flooding areas (like what was needed in New Orleans in 2005, but didn't happen). Requirements from the government that new construction meet a standard that increases the likelihood of structural survivability in a big quake is another... increased cost at construction years ago is MORE than off-set by the savings in life, treasure and infrastructure now, and I think anyone living in Tokyo or anywhere north of it would agree 100%.
God help them, please...
Anyone that questions my belief in God simply doesn't understand how regularly He makes His presense known in my life.
For the last two days, NEPA has had rain... in excess of 4 inches of rain when most of the region is still looking at a foot of snow on the ground and frozen soil below it. Every river, creek and waterway in the region is overflowing, and I have had as much as four inches of water in my basement for more than 24 hours. We have a new sump pump that removes 3200 gallons an hour, but it is located in a 100-year old basement made of dry stone walls and a poorly laid concrete floor... so it is about as waterproof as a screen door.
Still, the pump kept up and the rain has now stopped. School is cancelled due to flooding, but both Liz and I will make it to work just fine, and the 16-year-old can watch the pump while he's home. It was a long night, though... I was continually checking the height of the water down there to make sure it didn't swamp the furnace (fuel oil) or effect other vital utilities (especially electrical stuff), and I didn't get much sleep.
Needless to say, I was a bit testy last night. I don't feel I have many hang-ups or triggers in my life... but I am not ashamed to say that rising water is definitely one of them. Walking down stairs to see that much water covering the floor, and seeing the odd bit of trash or old toys floating about is not something I find soothing or comforting.
Waking up to see that video of the tsunami running through those Japanese villages and towns showed me just how petty my concerns must be right now. Having seen (first hand) what a 20' wall of water can do to a community and what the aftermath of that devestation is like... I can only say that I will pray for those people with all my heart, and I won't worry another minute about the puddles in my dirty, dark old basement.
For the last two days, NEPA has had rain... in excess of 4 inches of rain when most of the region is still looking at a foot of snow on the ground and frozen soil below it. Every river, creek and waterway in the region is overflowing, and I have had as much as four inches of water in my basement for more than 24 hours. We have a new sump pump that removes 3200 gallons an hour, but it is located in a 100-year old basement made of dry stone walls and a poorly laid concrete floor... so it is about as waterproof as a screen door.
Still, the pump kept up and the rain has now stopped. School is cancelled due to flooding, but both Liz and I will make it to work just fine, and the 16-year-old can watch the pump while he's home. It was a long night, though... I was continually checking the height of the water down there to make sure it didn't swamp the furnace (fuel oil) or effect other vital utilities (especially electrical stuff), and I didn't get much sleep.
Needless to say, I was a bit testy last night. I don't feel I have many hang-ups or triggers in my life... but I am not ashamed to say that rising water is definitely one of them. Walking down stairs to see that much water covering the floor, and seeing the odd bit of trash or old toys floating about is not something I find soothing or comforting.
Waking up to see that video of the tsunami running through those Japanese villages and towns showed me just how petty my concerns must be right now. Having seen (first hand) what a 20' wall of water can do to a community and what the aftermath of that devestation is like... I can only say that I will pray for those people with all my heart, and I won't worry another minute about the puddles in my dirty, dark old basement.
Earthquake
It is unsettling, to say the least, watching the live pictures of the tsunamis rolling across the agricultural areas of northern Japan and knowing that a lot of people are probably STILL in those buildings as they get inundated by the waves and debris.
The main quake is right now tabbed an 8.9, but there have been THREE aftershocks at seven, one at 7.4. These waves are going to keep coming for DAYS. The entire Pacific rim will feel this.
Damn...
The main quake is right now tabbed an 8.9, but there have been THREE aftershocks at seven, one at 7.4. These waves are going to keep coming for DAYS. The entire Pacific rim will feel this.
Damn...
My absense
I have to apologize. I have been sick, seriously ill, for almost a month. My time on the Bund has been limited to reading the posts from my smart phone, which doesn't allow me to post. As the one with the resolution for the 1000 posts in a year, I have not held up my end of the bargain. Now that I am fever free, I am back at it.
Your wife...
Really needs to do her homework.
In the long mantra of Titus' "liberal" background, he didn't mention HIS family's history. Please. Allow me.
Both Ray and George, our grandfathers, were lifelong union members. George with the railroad, Ray a Teamster his entire, non-military life. (Keep in mind, both served during WW2, Ray's career well documented deep within the Bund's history, George's not so much. He was a LT (jg) in the Navy, an aviator, and a flight instructor out of Pensacola, FL. He never saw combat, never served overseas during the war, (although did do a crusie in the Far East BEFORE the war, and had the tatoos to prove it) but trained hundreds of Navy pilots that did. For us growing up, the litmus test for anyone who had a "questionable" wartime resume was the stamp of approval from crusty, crabby, grumpy old man Ray, and on more than one occation, sober, even, Ray heartily approved of George's wartime resume and encouraged the man to brag. George never did.) George came from a deeply union family, and raised progressive Democrat children, including my mother. George and his wife were New Dealers through and through. Linda, my mother, was a quintessential Camelot era Democrat.
Ray, politically, embodied the living schism that is progressive Republicanism. He voted for Eisenhower and Nixon, dispite Kennedy's war record. He supported the fight against communism whole-heartedly. He also supported large government domestic programs like the interstate system, the TVA, the BLM and other individual aspects of New Deal, but to the best of my knowledge voted AGAINST FDR three times. (He was overseas in 1944 and unable to vote.) He HATED big government, HATED government spending on the prolific scale he lived to see, but LOVED Reagan AND George Bush Sr. He loved Social Security and vigorously defended it. He did not trust the private sector NOR his union with his retirement. So in terms of pinning the old man down, he was a difficult person to corner as his politics covered a wide specrum of issues.
Titus' father is the picture of "social liberal, foreign policy conservative." Father always supported Social Security and Medicade. Even today he is a supporter of health care reform, just not necessarily Obama's version of it. He believes it IS the Federal Government's job to provide these services to the population. He also is a firm supporter of the war on Terror and a strong military presense in areas of American interests abroad.
Titus's mother's views are well documented within previous Bund posts. Feel free to mine the past posts. Pay attention to just about anything dealing with New Deal or Kennedy era Democrats.
Titus hating libs... That is too funny!
I was SO TORN!!! I wanted to open this post with this sequence of quotes, but instead I'll put it here.
"Lt. Winters! Permission to speak!"
"Go ahead, Private Randalmann."
"Lt. Winters, why does Captain Soebel hate Easy Company?"
"Captain Soebel doesn't hate Easy Company. He loves Easy Company. He just hates you."
"Thank you, sir."
In the long mantra of Titus' "liberal" background, he didn't mention HIS family's history. Please. Allow me.
Both Ray and George, our grandfathers, were lifelong union members. George with the railroad, Ray a Teamster his entire, non-military life. (Keep in mind, both served during WW2, Ray's career well documented deep within the Bund's history, George's not so much. He was a LT (jg) in the Navy, an aviator, and a flight instructor out of Pensacola, FL. He never saw combat, never served overseas during the war, (although did do a crusie in the Far East BEFORE the war, and had the tatoos to prove it) but trained hundreds of Navy pilots that did. For us growing up, the litmus test for anyone who had a "questionable" wartime resume was the stamp of approval from crusty, crabby, grumpy old man Ray, and on more than one occation, sober, even, Ray heartily approved of George's wartime resume and encouraged the man to brag. George never did.) George came from a deeply union family, and raised progressive Democrat children, including my mother. George and his wife were New Dealers through and through. Linda, my mother, was a quintessential Camelot era Democrat.
Ray, politically, embodied the living schism that is progressive Republicanism. He voted for Eisenhower and Nixon, dispite Kennedy's war record. He supported the fight against communism whole-heartedly. He also supported large government domestic programs like the interstate system, the TVA, the BLM and other individual aspects of New Deal, but to the best of my knowledge voted AGAINST FDR three times. (He was overseas in 1944 and unable to vote.) He HATED big government, HATED government spending on the prolific scale he lived to see, but LOVED Reagan AND George Bush Sr. He loved Social Security and vigorously defended it. He did not trust the private sector NOR his union with his retirement. So in terms of pinning the old man down, he was a difficult person to corner as his politics covered a wide specrum of issues.
Titus' father is the picture of "social liberal, foreign policy conservative." Father always supported Social Security and Medicade. Even today he is a supporter of health care reform, just not necessarily Obama's version of it. He believes it IS the Federal Government's job to provide these services to the population. He also is a firm supporter of the war on Terror and a strong military presense in areas of American interests abroad.
Titus's mother's views are well documented within previous Bund posts. Feel free to mine the past posts. Pay attention to just about anything dealing with New Deal or Kennedy era Democrats.
Titus hating libs... That is too funny!
I was SO TORN!!! I wanted to open this post with this sequence of quotes, but instead I'll put it here.
"Lt. Winters! Permission to speak!"
"Go ahead, Private Randalmann."
"Lt. Winters, why does Captain Soebel hate Easy Company?"
"Captain Soebel doesn't hate Easy Company. He loves Easy Company. He just hates you."
"Thank you, sir."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
My wife...
My wife seems to think (along with the bulk of her family) that I "hate liberals". When I asked for evidence of this hatred, she pointed to the Bund and started "quoting" (which she wasn't doing... obviously) that I write about how I hate gays, welfare moms, retirees, immigrants, Muslims, Mormons, pacifists and union members.
I am, for those that read this and aren't intimately familiar with me, a registered member of the Democratic Party, I am a faithful (but not always successful) Roman Catholic, I am a second-time husband, and I work in an industry that is bottom-to-top service oriented.
I most certainly do not hate any of the groups listed by my wife. For example...
I have known many people that I count as close personal friends who happen to be homosexual, and I wish them every happiness in the world. I call them "friend" because they are good and deserving people, not because they are gay... nor is it in spite of the fact that they are gay. Their sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings about them. I do not support "pro-gay/lesbian" legislation because I wouldn't support pro-heterosexual legislation for the simple reason that the government has no business dictating what can and can't happen in the life of an individual that is abiding by and living within the law. I think it is wrong that I, as a heterosexual, have to go to the State or County where I live and obtain a marriage license (which is nothing more than a one-time tax on my lifestyle)... so why would I support something like that for homosexuals? If two people choose to live together as consenting life partners, I don't care if it is man-woman or man-man or woman-woman... live in peace and happiness as you see fit, just leave the government out of it, please.
I have a rather well-developed sense of social justice, and as such, I understand that there is a responsibility to those who have hit a rough spot in their lives. I firmly believe that it is in the greater good of the country to provide a degree of "security" to those that desperately need it... and welfare is that sort of security. I simply do not feel it is the sole province of the Federal government to provide it. I am convinced that the individual States know far better how to handle their homeless, indigent, unemployed and under-payed, and that these are the "governments" that should look to handle questions of assistance and aide.
I am, for those that haven't read this blog in its entirety, a firm supporter of doing away with immigration quotas entirely. I am in favor of an "open border" policy that screens only those wishing to apply for citizenship, and placing all the burden of "proof" on their shoulders. Our borders are so porous now that I find it hard to imagine a time when it would be easier for "terrorists" to enter the country than right now. The Federal government has tied the security at the border into such a knot that Gordius himself would be impressed (the mythic king who tied the Gordian knot). I simply do not think with extra effort and more money, the Feds can do any better than they are right now.
I am adamantly opposed to the US adopting an "official" language... we've never had one, the Founders didn't feel it necessary (and the disparity in languages was far greater then than it is now), and I simply think it is another pile of red tape that we don't need from the Feds. If people are upset at the "popularity" of such facets of commerce as "press one for English" then please blame the free market system that dictates that Spanish accessibility equals money for companies that provide it. If your problem is Federal regulations requiring it... then I'd say that MORE Federal regulations requiring specific languages is NOT the answer.
I do not hate Muslims, nor do I hate the religion of Islam. I am in no more of a position to poo-poo the faith of very nearly one quarter of the global population than I am of the man next door. If you were to ask me if I believe the tenants of that faith to be the true path to salvation, then I'd say, No I don't... but I make that determination based solely on my own personal understanding of God and His will. I can't make that call for anyone else. As much as I have tried, I cannot deny that the greatest threat to our country and our society right now stems from radical adherents to that faith, however... and that conclusion is undeniable. Strict, literal interpretation of the Qu'ran leads people to act in a manner that is utterly antithetical to what I believe God's will to be, and thus I often question those who interpret the Qu'ran in that manner. Many Muslims do follow that narrow, ultra-orthodox reading, and many others seem to pick and choose what to adhere to with real zeal... but that isn't my fault, nor is it cause to say I am anti-Islamic... only anti-intolerant.
I do not hate unions. I come from a family with a deep union tradition that helped see my generation grow up with a degree of security that might not otherwise have been. The fact that unions did mountains of good for down-trodden workers from the 1830s right up to today is as undeniable as the rising of the sun... but just because I question the rational behind a union or group of unions that chooses to put their best interests above that of an entire State (or the communities that support them), suddenly I am a "union hater"? I'm "representing the man" because I think that the unions have gone too far in some areas? Sorry, but it is difficult for me to feel a lot of sympathy for union members who are asked to pay 12% of their benefit costs rather than the previous 2% (which is what the NEA is facing in Wisc.)... all while I am paying 26% of my benefit costs, for 30% less salary according to a national average? When they try and put kids back in the textile mills at $3/day for 60 hours a week... then I'll feel sorry and start "shopping union" again. In the mean time, I'm thinking long and hard about "homeschooling"...
I don't hate pacifists. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God." (Matthew, 5:9) We are continually commanded in the Bible to "turn the other cheek" and to never resort to violence out of anger or frustration... but we are not forbidden to protect ourselves from danger and harm, either as individuals or as nations. There is no greater a level of national security for this country than that point where an enemy would look across our shores or borders and KNOW that there was a citizen willing to lay down his life behind every branch and tree (which is exactly what Yamamoto said would happen if Japan ever invaded the US). What better deterrent against crimes like burglary, rape, assault, or murder could there be than the fear that anyone you meet might be armed and ready to defend themselves? Want to know why our grandparents and great-grandparents didn't know the kind of crime rates that we know today? Because so many more of them had firearms in the house they lived in, or in the trucks and cars they drove. Anyone that doesn't think the way I do can simply not keep or bear arms... but please don't take that right away from me, because I want to be able to protect my family, my property and my life.
Finally... Mormons.
Liz really does get mad at me when I pick on Ryan about his faith. However, I cannot honestly do anything but praise each and every Mormon I've ever met for being honest, faithful and more family-oriented than any TEN Catholics I've met. Their faith is family-friendly and heart-felt... none more than Ryan's. I shouldn't pick on him about it... but the differences I have with Mormonism are purely theological, and Ryan is not a theologian, so I can't expect him to answer them for me.
So, if you are wondering... I don't hate Mormons at all... I just hate Ryan.
(wink)
I am, for those that read this and aren't intimately familiar with me, a registered member of the Democratic Party, I am a faithful (but not always successful) Roman Catholic, I am a second-time husband, and I work in an industry that is bottom-to-top service oriented.
I most certainly do not hate any of the groups listed by my wife. For example...
I have known many people that I count as close personal friends who happen to be homosexual, and I wish them every happiness in the world. I call them "friend" because they are good and deserving people, not because they are gay... nor is it in spite of the fact that they are gay. Their sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings about them. I do not support "pro-gay/lesbian" legislation because I wouldn't support pro-heterosexual legislation for the simple reason that the government has no business dictating what can and can't happen in the life of an individual that is abiding by and living within the law. I think it is wrong that I, as a heterosexual, have to go to the State or County where I live and obtain a marriage license (which is nothing more than a one-time tax on my lifestyle)... so why would I support something like that for homosexuals? If two people choose to live together as consenting life partners, I don't care if it is man-woman or man-man or woman-woman... live in peace and happiness as you see fit, just leave the government out of it, please.
I have a rather well-developed sense of social justice, and as such, I understand that there is a responsibility to those who have hit a rough spot in their lives. I firmly believe that it is in the greater good of the country to provide a degree of "security" to those that desperately need it... and welfare is that sort of security. I simply do not feel it is the sole province of the Federal government to provide it. I am convinced that the individual States know far better how to handle their homeless, indigent, unemployed and under-payed, and that these are the "governments" that should look to handle questions of assistance and aide.
I am, for those that haven't read this blog in its entirety, a firm supporter of doing away with immigration quotas entirely. I am in favor of an "open border" policy that screens only those wishing to apply for citizenship, and placing all the burden of "proof" on their shoulders. Our borders are so porous now that I find it hard to imagine a time when it would be easier for "terrorists" to enter the country than right now. The Federal government has tied the security at the border into such a knot that Gordius himself would be impressed (the mythic king who tied the Gordian knot). I simply do not think with extra effort and more money, the Feds can do any better than they are right now.
I am adamantly opposed to the US adopting an "official" language... we've never had one, the Founders didn't feel it necessary (and the disparity in languages was far greater then than it is now), and I simply think it is another pile of red tape that we don't need from the Feds. If people are upset at the "popularity" of such facets of commerce as "press one for English" then please blame the free market system that dictates that Spanish accessibility equals money for companies that provide it. If your problem is Federal regulations requiring it... then I'd say that MORE Federal regulations requiring specific languages is NOT the answer.
I do not hate Muslims, nor do I hate the religion of Islam. I am in no more of a position to poo-poo the faith of very nearly one quarter of the global population than I am of the man next door. If you were to ask me if I believe the tenants of that faith to be the true path to salvation, then I'd say, No I don't... but I make that determination based solely on my own personal understanding of God and His will. I can't make that call for anyone else. As much as I have tried, I cannot deny that the greatest threat to our country and our society right now stems from radical adherents to that faith, however... and that conclusion is undeniable. Strict, literal interpretation of the Qu'ran leads people to act in a manner that is utterly antithetical to what I believe God's will to be, and thus I often question those who interpret the Qu'ran in that manner. Many Muslims do follow that narrow, ultra-orthodox reading, and many others seem to pick and choose what to adhere to with real zeal... but that isn't my fault, nor is it cause to say I am anti-Islamic... only anti-intolerant.
I do not hate unions. I come from a family with a deep union tradition that helped see my generation grow up with a degree of security that might not otherwise have been. The fact that unions did mountains of good for down-trodden workers from the 1830s right up to today is as undeniable as the rising of the sun... but just because I question the rational behind a union or group of unions that chooses to put their best interests above that of an entire State (or the communities that support them), suddenly I am a "union hater"? I'm "representing the man" because I think that the unions have gone too far in some areas? Sorry, but it is difficult for me to feel a lot of sympathy for union members who are asked to pay 12% of their benefit costs rather than the previous 2% (which is what the NEA is facing in Wisc.)... all while I am paying 26% of my benefit costs, for 30% less salary according to a national average? When they try and put kids back in the textile mills at $3/day for 60 hours a week... then I'll feel sorry and start "shopping union" again. In the mean time, I'm thinking long and hard about "homeschooling"...
I don't hate pacifists. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God." (Matthew, 5:9) We are continually commanded in the Bible to "turn the other cheek" and to never resort to violence out of anger or frustration... but we are not forbidden to protect ourselves from danger and harm, either as individuals or as nations. There is no greater a level of national security for this country than that point where an enemy would look across our shores or borders and KNOW that there was a citizen willing to lay down his life behind every branch and tree (which is exactly what Yamamoto said would happen if Japan ever invaded the US). What better deterrent against crimes like burglary, rape, assault, or murder could there be than the fear that anyone you meet might be armed and ready to defend themselves? Want to know why our grandparents and great-grandparents didn't know the kind of crime rates that we know today? Because so many more of them had firearms in the house they lived in, or in the trucks and cars they drove. Anyone that doesn't think the way I do can simply not keep or bear arms... but please don't take that right away from me, because I want to be able to protect my family, my property and my life.
Finally... Mormons.
Liz really does get mad at me when I pick on Ryan about his faith. However, I cannot honestly do anything but praise each and every Mormon I've ever met for being honest, faithful and more family-oriented than any TEN Catholics I've met. Their faith is family-friendly and heart-felt... none more than Ryan's. I shouldn't pick on him about it... but the differences I have with Mormonism are purely theological, and Ryan is not a theologian, so I can't expect him to answer them for me.
So, if you are wondering... I don't hate Mormons at all... I just hate Ryan.
(wink)
On Wisconsin...
Hehe... sorry, big pun there in the title... for those that aren't "cheeseheads" at heart, "On Wisconsin" is the University of Wisconsin fight song.
I followed up on Ryan's last post, and it is fascinating to see the way the liberal outlets and pundits are coloring this story. You can read any one of a hundred posts on the Huffington Post and all of them give a very twisted, heavily spun version of what actually happened... and none of them give any insight into the opposing view's points.
In just this one article alone, the liberal taint is so obvious it is almost amazing. I know this isn't "journalism"... its a blog, just like the Driveway Bund is a blog. It is pure opinion, with very little objectivity (which we, at least, try to maintain)... but it is still amusing to think that this is a "source" for so many in America.
I find it very telling indeed that they have completely ignored the FACT that the Wisconsin Senate did NOT violate law when it voted on the CBA-portion of the bill. Since (as Ryan said) it was NOT a budgetary matter (meaning no money was being appropriated by anything in the bill), no quorum was needed and only sitting Senators within the Chamber at the time of the vote need speak, it was a perfectly legal and straightforward move. I agree that it was as close to a "nuclear option" as the Wisconsin GOP was likely to have, but after three weeks, I'd say they had given the Dem leadership all the time they could.
Even more remarkably, the Huffington Post has elected to NEGLECT to mention the fact that more than 70% of Wisconsin respondents APPROVED of the action taken by the GOP Senators... so they can rant about "hurting middle class workers" all they want... 70% of middle class workers seem to think this was a measure worth supporting.
I followed up on Ryan's last post, and it is fascinating to see the way the liberal outlets and pundits are coloring this story. You can read any one of a hundred posts on the Huffington Post and all of them give a very twisted, heavily spun version of what actually happened... and none of them give any insight into the opposing view's points.
In just this one article alone, the liberal taint is so obvious it is almost amazing. I know this isn't "journalism"... its a blog, just like the Driveway Bund is a blog. It is pure opinion, with very little objectivity (which we, at least, try to maintain)... but it is still amusing to think that this is a "source" for so many in America.
I find it very telling indeed that they have completely ignored the FACT that the Wisconsin Senate did NOT violate law when it voted on the CBA-portion of the bill. Since (as Ryan said) it was NOT a budgetary matter (meaning no money was being appropriated by anything in the bill), no quorum was needed and only sitting Senators within the Chamber at the time of the vote need speak, it was a perfectly legal and straightforward move. I agree that it was as close to a "nuclear option" as the Wisconsin GOP was likely to have, but after three weeks, I'd say they had given the Dem leadership all the time they could.
Even more remarkably, the Huffington Post has elected to NEGLECT to mention the fact that more than 70% of Wisconsin respondents APPROVED of the action taken by the GOP Senators... so they can rant about "hurting middle class workers" all they want... 70% of middle class workers seem to think this was a measure worth supporting.
Remember that "yardstick" post?
There's tons of articles this morning about how the Egyptian army has removed Coptic Christians from Tahir Square and denied them the same protests that Muslim protesters have enjoyed for weeks.
I understand that this was partly to ensure their safety, since there are still an awful lot of radicals running around Cairo (Muslim Brotherhood, et al) that might take advantage of this and bring anger and hatred raining down on them... but it can't be discounted that this might be the beginnings of an "Islamic" resurgence that makes being a Christian in Egypt as dangerous as ever. Things are not getting better in Egypt at a fast pace, I can tell you that.
I'd say the 13 dead Copts would agree with me.
I understand that this was partly to ensure their safety, since there are still an awful lot of radicals running around Cairo (Muslim Brotherhood, et al) that might take advantage of this and bring anger and hatred raining down on them... but it can't be discounted that this might be the beginnings of an "Islamic" resurgence that makes being a Christian in Egypt as dangerous as ever. Things are not getting better in Egypt at a fast pace, I can tell you that.
I'd say the 13 dead Copts would agree with me.
In Will's defense...
Will was not saying the list was "his" list... only that it was a list he seemed to think would carry into the election cycle because of "centrist" tendencies in the candidates. Will's point seems to be that the GOP candidates with the best chance will be those that can play the center. I tend to agree with Ryan, however, and disagree.
Look at his list... Romney and Daniels are known moderates, at best. I know Ryan liked Romney in '08, but let's face it, he really was just a notch up from McCain on "middle-of-the-road" conservatism. I've heard an awful lot about "Romney-care" too... and it is still a far cry from anything an actual "conservative" would endorse. I still think it is pretty clear cut... the only regulation that needs to be written and enforced is a 14 to 21 day limit on how long an insurance provider can delay paying a covered claim, and that should be mandated across the country. Otherwise, delete all regulations that inhibit or slow down inter-State insurance coverage, deregulate who can and can't offer coverage (the people selling the insurance ARE NOT the people providing the medical services... they don't need to meet any standards other than proving they have the capital to cover the costs when they arise), and let people shop for the best coverage they can find for their lifestyle. Someone, somewhere is going to provide them with coverage they can afford, and the bigger the provider, the better the coverage (as is the case with ALL insurance companies).
Only Barbour seems to be a real conservative in both actions and words... and I can't find the original article, so I don't know who his fifth pick was. My point is that Will seems to think there will be a real effort (both in and out of the GOP) to keep candidates on the march who are appealing to "both sides" of as many issues as possible. This is 100% counter to the latest push by the Tea Party and its supporters (as Ryan said) and I'm not sure it will work. If we end up with another "maverick" like McCain on the ballot, the conservative movement will be sunk in 2012. Huntsman, Daniels and Romney are nothing more than McCain 2.0.
Look at his list... Romney and Daniels are known moderates, at best. I know Ryan liked Romney in '08, but let's face it, he really was just a notch up from McCain on "middle-of-the-road" conservatism. I've heard an awful lot about "Romney-care" too... and it is still a far cry from anything an actual "conservative" would endorse. I still think it is pretty clear cut... the only regulation that needs to be written and enforced is a 14 to 21 day limit on how long an insurance provider can delay paying a covered claim, and that should be mandated across the country. Otherwise, delete all regulations that inhibit or slow down inter-State insurance coverage, deregulate who can and can't offer coverage (the people selling the insurance ARE NOT the people providing the medical services... they don't need to meet any standards other than proving they have the capital to cover the costs when they arise), and let people shop for the best coverage they can find for their lifestyle. Someone, somewhere is going to provide them with coverage they can afford, and the bigger the provider, the better the coverage (as is the case with ALL insurance companies).
Only Barbour seems to be a real conservative in both actions and words... and I can't find the original article, so I don't know who his fifth pick was. My point is that Will seems to think there will be a real effort (both in and out of the GOP) to keep candidates on the march who are appealing to "both sides" of as many issues as possible. This is 100% counter to the latest push by the Tea Party and its supporters (as Ryan said) and I'm not sure it will work. If we end up with another "maverick" like McCain on the ballot, the conservative movement will be sunk in 2012. Huntsman, Daniels and Romney are nothing more than McCain 2.0.
Maine's tourism board ...
If Im on it, Im putting this is the commercial. Im posting from my phone now, so I cant provide the hyper link, but the long & short of it is Obama gave the entire state of Maine a waiver for key provisions of Obamacare. Apparently a large insurer threatened to leave the state, senators got panicked over the loss of Jobs, & whammo - unequal protection under the law. Thats on top of the 211 companies (& counting, such as Mc Donalds & 3M) that have major waivers on the key/expensive provisions.
I cant wait for this to get to the SCOTUS.
I cant wait for this to get to the SCOTUS.
Out Manuvered x2
O'Keefe's undercover video got a top NPR executive fired after catching him referring to the Tea Party as racist, Jewish derisions, etc. And today the CEO, the big kahuna of NPR, the VERY woman that fired Juan Williams, resigned. Rumor has it the board of NPR had enough of the way she was running their house and "solicited" her resignation.
It doesn't take Guinuar (sp?) Private Eye, to see they're in melt down mode. Like Titus said, this O'Keefe's more of a beat reporter than any in the last generation - exposing corruption in publicly funded institutions, one after another.
But here's the biggie -
Wisconsin Senate Republicans made a brilliant move.
First, lets note that Governor Walker's compromise (offered 3 days ago & rejected), was to allow for collective bargaining on salaries and wages past the point of inflation (allowed only to inflation in his original proposal), as well as relenting on collective bargaining on sick days, work safety, and OT (all eliminated under his original bill). And it called for a "re-up" vote (for members to maintain their union) every 3 years, rather then annually as he proposed originally. However, it maintained the removal of collective bargaining in its' entirety for health insurance, and it maintained the pension and health insurance contributions needed to trim the budget. As Titus mentioned, it was a genuine attempt to bring the 2 sides together. A real olive branch.
Well, the 14 Senate Democrats on the lamb sent their message via email and the press (& via their refusal to show up), calling the proposed compromise - "A blue print for future negotiations." I mean, all the Governor needed was for 1 of the 14 to return. The magic number is 20 (20 of 34), and the GOP holds 19 senate seats.
I think that's when the WI GOP snapped. They had had it. Enter the nuclear option...
As you may recall, after a few days of protesting the NEA et al agreed to the direct monetary concessions - the raised pension and health plan contributions. However, they REFUSED to budge on collective bargaining. After all, that's their bread and butter. That's what all of this has been about, all the protests, the fleeing senators, the sit-ins - protecting collective bargaining in its' entirety.
Well guess what?
The WI Senate requires a "quorum" of at least 20 Senators to vote ... on bills that spend money. Late this afternoon the Majority leader of the WI Senate stripped the collective bargaining out of the original bill, submitted it as a stand alone bill, posted a 2 hour notice to come and vote, called a vote, and passed it 18-1. And after the WI Assembly passes it tomorrow, public employees in Wisconsin will have lost their collective bargaining rights (minus any of Walker's recent compromises).
D-O-N-E! Check mate. Go ahead, take in a Bulls game while you're there.
Disappearing like that, and more to the point staying gone this long (3 weeks), the WI Dems overplayed their hand. They went "all in" on rags ... and Walker had 18 aces in the senate... hehehehe.
It doesn't take Guinuar (sp?) Private Eye, to see they're in melt down mode. Like Titus said, this O'Keefe's more of a beat reporter than any in the last generation - exposing corruption in publicly funded institutions, one after another.
But here's the biggie -
Wisconsin Senate Republicans made a brilliant move.
First, lets note that Governor Walker's compromise (offered 3 days ago & rejected), was to allow for collective bargaining on salaries and wages past the point of inflation (allowed only to inflation in his original proposal), as well as relenting on collective bargaining on sick days, work safety, and OT (all eliminated under his original bill). And it called for a "re-up" vote (for members to maintain their union) every 3 years, rather then annually as he proposed originally. However, it maintained the removal of collective bargaining in its' entirety for health insurance, and it maintained the pension and health insurance contributions needed to trim the budget. As Titus mentioned, it was a genuine attempt to bring the 2 sides together. A real olive branch.
Well, the 14 Senate Democrats on the lamb sent their message via email and the press (& via their refusal to show up), calling the proposed compromise - "A blue print for future negotiations." I mean, all the Governor needed was for 1 of the 14 to return. The magic number is 20 (20 of 34), and the GOP holds 19 senate seats.
I think that's when the WI GOP snapped. They had had it. Enter the nuclear option...
As you may recall, after a few days of protesting the NEA et al agreed to the direct monetary concessions - the raised pension and health plan contributions. However, they REFUSED to budge on collective bargaining. After all, that's their bread and butter. That's what all of this has been about, all the protests, the fleeing senators, the sit-ins - protecting collective bargaining in its' entirety.
Well guess what?
The WI Senate requires a "quorum" of at least 20 Senators to vote ... on bills that spend money. Late this afternoon the Majority leader of the WI Senate stripped the collective bargaining out of the original bill, submitted it as a stand alone bill, posted a 2 hour notice to come and vote, called a vote, and passed it 18-1. And after the WI Assembly passes it tomorrow, public employees in Wisconsin will have lost their collective bargaining rights (minus any of Walker's recent compromises).
D-O-N-E! Check mate. Go ahead, take in a Bulls game while you're there.
Disappearing like that, and more to the point staying gone this long (3 weeks), the WI Dems overplayed their hand. They went "all in" on rags ... and Walker had 18 aces in the senate... hehehehe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
